The White Liberal Conundrum

Anti-racism is a rewarding but grueling journey which must be consciously undertaken and intrepidly pursued (both inwardly and outwardly) if one hopes to make serious progress along its twisting passageways and steep inclines. There's no static end-condition at which an anti-racist can arrive and definitively declare, "Hallelujah! I am Not A Racist!" Rather, it's a lifelong process of historical education, vigilant self-interrogation, personal growth, and socio-political agitation. Racism fractures our world and our own intactness; anti-racism seeks to proactively treat these bleeding wounds and restore the integrity of our humanity.

As I've often noted, many white liberals remain oblivious to the depth and breadth of anti-racist work, opting to hide behind the delusion that anyone who votes for Democrats and doesn't have a pointy hood in the closet is "a good guy" in the movement toward greater social justice — as though the Democratic Party is some bastion of progressivism and not one of two hands strangling US polity on behalf of the ruling class and the corporate-political establishment which sponsors its power. Some might be surprised to learn that when people of color talk about racism amongst ourselves, white liberals often receive a far harsher skewering than white conservatives or overt racists. Many of my POC friends would actually prefer to hang out with an Archie Bunker-type who spits flagrantly offensive opinions, rather than a colorblind liberal whose insidious paternalism, dehumanizing tokenism, and cognitive indoctrination ooze out between superficially progressive words. At least the former gives you something to work with, something above-board to engage and argue against; the latter tacitly insists on imposing and maintaining an illusion of non-racist moral purity which provides little to no room for genuine self-examination or racial dialogue.

Countless blogospheric discussions on racism amply demonstrate the manner in which many white liberals start acting victimized and angry if anyone attempts to burst their racism-free bubble, oftentimes inexplicably bringing up non-white friends, lovers, adopted children, relatives, ancestors; dismissing, belittling, or obtusely misreading substantive historically-informed analysis of white supremacism as either "divisive rhetoric" or "flaming"; downplaying racism as an interpersonal social stigma and bad PR, rather than an overarching system of power under which we all live and which has socialized us all; and threatening to walk away from discussion if persons of color do not comform to a narrow white-centered comfort zone. Such people aren't necessarily racists in the hate-crime sense of the word, but they are usually acting out social dynamics created by racism and replicating the racist social relationships they were conditioned since birth to replicate.

Of course not all white liberals are like this. I'd say that a significant minority of white liberals are actually interested in learning about anti-racism once properly exposed to it. This requires enough humility to admit that people of color have something to teach white folks, a concept that many whites struggle with because racism teaches us that whiteness is the seat of authoritative knowledge, while brownness is the repository of murky musical mysticism which whiteness may dip into at will for spiritual support and servile entertainment. Nevertheless, some white folks manage to claw and bootstrap their way out of their own conditioning, opening their hearts and minds to previously unseen worlds from which the voices and stories of people of color emerge; studying and observing the profound effects of racist society on their own perceptual prisms and on the shape of the world; and consciously, steadily working to counteract those effects. Such people become allies to people of color.

From what I can see, though, a solid majority of white liberals maintain a fairly hostile posture toward anti-racist discourse and critique, while of course adamantly denying this hostility. Many white liberals consider themselves rather enlightened for their ability to retroactively support the Civil Rights movement and to quote safely dead anti-racist icons, even though their present-day physical, intellectual, and political orbits remain mostly segregated. They somehow take pride in being more "down with the brown" than their conservative brethren; indeed they exhibit a certain strange glee in highlighting and exploiting the "macaca" and "call me" moments of their political opponents. Armed with "diversity" soundbites and melanin-inclusive photo-ops, they seek electoral, financial, and public relations support from people of color. Yet the consistent outcome of their institution-building agendas is to deprioritize and marginalize our voices, perspectives, experiences, concerns, cultures, and initiatives. When you get right down to it, the unrecognized political reality is that most white liberals have more in common with white conservatives — social cues, family ties, cognitive biases, cultural backdrops, etc. — than they do with people of color. I'm calling this tangle of contradictions the white liberal conundrum.

Obviously the record of white liberals when it comes to racism isn't good. Now I know that white folks frequently bemoan the guilt-laden burden of inheriting the racist legacy of their predecessors; to which I can only respond: If white folks disavow and destroy all the systemic advantages and interlocking privileges and perks of whiteness, then they're off the hook! But you can't enjoy the lifelong fruits of the legacy while disowning the accountability, right? That's not how it works.

For people of color, the white liberal conundrum manifests as an ongoing and often exhausting struggle to determine the extent to which they can or should work with, or trust, white liberals. Some feel that it's a waste of time, that most white folks will never get it and those who do will find their way into POC-led movements on their own. Others believe that some modicum of energy should be extended toward bringing white persons of good will on board anti-racism and forging common ground. I'm not really sure myself, but I do know that either way, communities of color are going to be on the move and organizing, resisting the racist social order with ingenuity and hope, even as white supremacist imperialism heaps its abuse upon dark bodies around the world. Anti-racist progress will continue to occur as it always has: outside of the imperious gaze of the mainstream; advanced by the tireless efforts of innumerable anonymous activists, organizers, visionaries, artists, collaborators, innovators; continually appropriated and/or sabotaged by the political and media establishment; reduced and glossed over by mainstream journalists and historians as the miraculous mojo magic of establishment-anointed "leaders"; and despite all that, continually inspiring vibrant cultural scenes, enabling potent spiritual networks, and undertaking positive socio-political interventions and transformations.

For those white liberals and progressives who become serious about extracting racism from their worlds and their lives, who wish to participate in the dismantling of white supremacy, the white liberal conundrum usually culminates in some sort of series of crossroads and reckonings; they're often forced to make tough decisions about which of their previous alliances and networks — newly illuminated and often unfavorably recontextualized by anti-racist analysis — are worth trying to maintain, which are too invested in the distortions of the white lens to salvage, and which new directions and networks to pursue.

The good news for those who wish to embark upon the anti-racist journey is that there's plenty of help along the way. The literature on anti-racist history, theory, and practice is voluminous. In the intertube age, it's not all that hard to find. White liberals who have no interest in engaging this vital body of knowledge, who refuse to incorporate it into their political vision and agendas, cannot be considered allies to people of color; they shouldn't act surprised when not all that many persons of color show up for their parties, contribute to their causes, or buy into their narratives. On the other hand, those who have the courage to allow themselves to be transformed by anti-racist consciousness have a shot at escaping the white liberal conundrum; they turn their critical powers upon their own lives, minds, and hearts first; they listen and read and reflect with seering honesty; and thus they begin to recognize — and actively oppose — the breadth and depth of racism's consistent, dehumanizing, body-shattering impact on the shape of this wounded world.

Comments

[Yolanda Carrington]

Thanks go much for this, Kai. Funny how white folks dread the specter of "white guilt," but not the everyday cost of racist dehumanization. I mean damn, it's so obvious ain't it---if you're tired of feeling guilty, shut down the cause of the guilt! Wouldn't this be a no-brainer with any other human folly?

The second biggest fear that white folks have after guilt is the relentless anger and hatred they assume people of color have for whites, just because they're white. It's like POC predators go lurking around for that unsuspecting white person to stab in the heart with our lethal rage. Now I don't know about you, but I've never hated white folk in my life. If anything, I've held their humanity sacred when I didn't recognize my own, as most POC have. We've always put white folks first. Now that's a damn valid reason to be angry.

[Yolanda Carrington]

Correction: First sentence should read: "Thanks so much, Kai." ;-)

[Kai]

Yolanda, thanks for your comment! So true about white folks' fear of POC anger. I mean, most POC interact with white folks all the time, like, every day; it's no really big deal! I suppose some might misinterpret anti-racist critique as anger toward all white people, but that's really not an informed perspective, as most anti-racists welcome serious white allies and sometimes even friends! I know it sounds crazy, but it happens, hehe... ;-)

[Nightprowlkitty]

What I have found most valuable in your writing, Kai, is the notion of being "anti-racist" -- as a verb, so to speak, that it's not enough to have pretty feelings about POC, but to actively fight against racism any way you can.

I've been experimenting with this over at Daily Kos. When Duke1676 wrote a splendid post about the Dream Act, there were several people who put forth the usual racist comments about "illegal aliens," straight out of the RW handbook, even as they proclaimed their staunch Democratic views. Everyone in the thread was trying to convince one poster in particular of how wrong this was. I decided to get very vulgar and flat out called the poster a racist, using a whole bunch of four letter words, and asking the other folks on the thread why they were dancing around that reality. Finally one poster admitted, yes, I was right, this person was a racist.

The tactic had mixed results -- obviously, I can't go around cursing folks all the time and hope for any real communication. On another thread, a poster I very much admire, asked me to remove a troll rating on a racist comment, saying it was better to engage. I complied -- this was a different, though still hurtful, comment, showing the person's real anger and hatred towards undocumented migrants in her own community.

To fight racism within oneself and confront it without -- it's a difficult task. But your words are so helpful, so clearly showing it is not only about thinking and learning, but also doing. Thank you for this.

[Kai]

Nightprowlkitty, I like that, "anti-racist" as a verb. You can't be neutral on a moving train, as the Zinn saying goes. You know, I recently found your "manifesto" post at your group blog, I think what you're doing is great and I appreciate the ideas you're attempting to foster; though obviously there's some resistance, but hey that's what this post is about, hehe. And yeah, you know, once in a while a good cussing out is called for, if someone's just being an incorrigible asshat. I think picking battles and tactics is a tricky thing which every individual kinda works out for themselves, mostly through experimenting, as you're doing. I guess you're on the right track. ;-) Thanks for your kind words and your support! Peace.

[Kevin]

Wonderful work once again, Kai.

A challenge is to get people to understand that there is a difference between racism in the exercising white privilege way and racism in the cross-burning way. If I say, "hey, what you just did is racist," I'm not necessarily saying that you are a member of the Klan or that you hate all PoC, I'm usually saying that in this instance, you are being blind to the structural forces of white supremacy and privilege that allow you to, say, put up blackface images on your blog and think it's ok, funny even, because you are a "liberal" or a "progressive." That blindness does nothing but help to reinforce the structural and institutional racism that I seek to overthrow. What bums me out the most is that I usually say this to white people that I believe will be receptive and introspective enough to get it. And then the push back occurs. Call me naive, I guess.

I've been thinking about putting together a Racism 101 wiki in the vein of the Feminism 101 site--a place were anti-racist activists can send folks for the basics of anti-racist thought and activism. I wonder if it wouldn't help if there were a single place where people could find the links, the authors, the activists, that most of us take for granted--a place where folks might learn that the Civil Rights movement didn't end with Dr. King and that black feminism didn't end with bell hooks. So, what do y'all think about such a project? Would you be interested in contributing? Would it work?

[thinking girl]

Kai,

great post.

I think Kevin nailed it: there's a difference between being racist by say hanging nooses from trees in Louisiana, and being racist by buying into social structures that support white domination.

I experienced something recently that really came back to me while I read this post. I had attended a talk on my campus on anti-trafficking work, since I am participating in such a project, and one of the speakers (who I've been meaning to post about, think maybe today I can flesh my thoughts out about what he said) was Mexican, and spoke about the Culture of White being one of domination, exploitation, appropriation, commodification. I mean, so true, right? but, on the walk home, the girl I attended the talk with was completely incensed by what he had said. she went on a long rant about how white people shouldn't have to feel guilty for what their ancestors did, how white culture is jsut as important as POC cultures, and that POC cultures have long histories of treating women badly too so why should we whites try to learn from them.

I was shocked by her response. this is someone who spent time working at a women's shelter in southern India for several months. we had quite a discussion about it, but I doubt I changed her mind one iota.

the difference is that I knew that speaker wasn't talking about me. not in the "I'm not a racist, pin a rose on my nose" way, but in the "yep, I know I am racist, I move within a comfortable white-centric framework that gives me a lot of benefits I don't deserve, and I'm doing my best to work that shit out" way. she just felt like he called her a capital-R-Racist, which everyone knows is the most awful thing in the world to be. she felt personally attacked by his words.

anyway, long story, sorry about that, but yeah, thank you for writing about this.

Kevin - I love your idea. do it! If I can help at all, let me know.

[kactus]

Thanks for this Kai.

It is impossible to completely close your eyes again after they've been opened. When you begin to see the effects of racism, and its awful scope across our world, you can't be blind. You can try to shut it out, but you're always aware, even in your denial, that it's there.

I bless the day my eyes were opened. I would not embrace ignorance again, no matter how blissful it was.

[Joan Kelly]

Thanks for this post and to the commenters also.

There's something about the white-people-shouldn't-have-to-feel-guilty-today-for-what-white-people-did-a-hundred-years-ago thing that is just blatant projection, to my eyes. As in, since feeling guilty neither addresses nor assists in anti-racist action, it just seems like people actually already do feel guilty, rather than that they are resisting someone else's imagined call to guilt, and they feel put-out by their own fabricated reminders of that guilt because it's a buzz killer.

I think about what I want from anyone who has hurt me or potentially is still doing so. Their feeling guilty? Hasn't made the list so far. I feel like, could people at least have the respect to "defiantly" refuse something that's actually being called for? Jesus.

P.S. Thank you for all the links, too.

[Nanette]

Wonderful, as usual, Kai. And perfect timing!Of course, with this subject, just about any timing is perfect, but still ;). I need to add this to my bookshelf.

I went through a conversation that pretty much hit on all of the above, with the added goodies of positioning people of color as the racist oppressors of white women (who are in interracial relationships). What made it so freaky was that the discussion was at a usually pretty anti-racist site, with usually pretty anti-racist white folks but (as one person described it) everything was like a carnival funhouse, with things upside down and different in the mirror and crooked and just very, very strange.

Sigh, I think I need to either write a post about it or revisit the conversation and just lay it all out, cuz I'm still a little spooked at how quickly things settled into the same old pattern among people who really should know better.

Also, though, a neat post! I came across this livejournal post cuz of referral links (she references my Benefit of the Doubt post) and I just love how she explains privilege ("the giant personal bodyguard") and stuff.

[donna darko]

Can you imagine, "I WON'T take anti-racist action but I WILL feel guilty!" None of my feminist and anti-racist ranting has ever hurt anyone concretely. But the action or lack of action by whites and men imprisons, maims and kills people. At the most, I made a man or white person angry or face his privilege. Wait, that's doing the right thing!

[donna darko]

Here's another livejournal link. There have been a bunch of these on livejournal.

[Kai]

Kevin, a Racism 101 site might be good, if there's nothing out there already that does quite what you're envisioning. Let me know what you have in mind and how I can help. Thanks for the note!

Thinking Girl, thanks for the story, it's another good example of white liberal conundrum-ness. It's always rather disconcerting to witness up-close because of the jarring mental disconnect it takes to carry on as though these blind spots aren't there.

Kactus, agreed, there's really no turning back from your own humanity after all. Thanks for your words.

[Kai]

Joan Kelly, Nanette, Donna Darko, thanks stopping by with good words and links!

[Vaughn Young]

Thank you very much for this post Kai. It is extremely enlightening and a cause for deep reflection and thought. I'm new to your site, and I'm very glad that I've come here. Is it possible to get a detailed (or not so detailed) listing of some of the most prevalent and most obvious areas of white privilege and interlocking advantage that are a result of the legacy of historical racism? One of the first ones that come to mind for me is the legal justice system in our country, and its powerful biases against POC. What are some of the others? I wish to arm myself for intelligent discussion on this subject matter in the future with anyone I might have the chance to do so. It might also be further enlightening for both POC and white people that wish to have their eyes opened more to the world around us. For all I know you have already done this on another post. Please just send me a link or a web address. Thanks!

[Rachel S.]

Sorry for the drive by comment, but I just wanted to say that Allywork is supposed to be a the Racism 101 blog, but unfortunately vegankid and I are the only people who have posted. He and I talked a few months ago about extending it and having more authors and/or soliciting blog posts on certain topics. Plus, we are also troubled by the idea of it being a white ally blog, when we both believe cross racial coalitions are necessary to challenge racism.

If any people would like to participate at Allywork, let me know.

I enjoyed the post Kai. BTW, but I wanted to make sure to get that out there.

[donna darko]

Vaughn, there are resources on my link and you can type "white privilege" on the search button on this blog or on the blogs on the blogroll here. You can also google "white privilege."

[Huang Wei]

Let me clarify something. If you raise anti-white-supremist issues with a person who is white, it will be perceived as accusational. It doesn't matter how you phrase it, and it doesn't matter how you mean it. It stands to reason. If I walk up to a german and start talking about Nazi germany, they will get offended. They are not trying to erase the past of their nation, they are simply hurt by the insinuated connection between them and the Nazis.
People, you are not anti-rascist. I mean...."Funny how white folks dread the specter of "white guilt," but not the everyday cost of racist dehumanization"
If a white person said "funny how black folks" or "funny how asians all..." When you lump an entire race/culture/nationality/gender into one generalization, is this not the very definition of rascism? What is happening here is simple. It's called fighting fire with fire.

[Kevin]

After I posted my comment, I thought of Allywork as a possible Racism 101 blog, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought of Allywork as a place for white anti-racists to network (which I wholeheartedly support, btw). Perhaps I'm wrong? When I think about a Racism 101 site, I'm thinking about something for the folks that aren't on the train already. Something that everyone can be involved in. I'd be more than willing to participate at Allywork.

[R. Mildred]

If I walk up to a german and start talking about Nazi germany, they will get offended.

Actually most germans don't, the holocaust deniers in germany will, but most will only get offended if you start talking about how immigrants are treated by modern germans, becuase they've put their soviet and nazi history behidn them, and it's a burden they're willing to carry, but they've gotten better about it, really.

Now a large number of japanese will get offended if you talk about say the rape of nanking and similar things, because unlike germany, the american occupying forces enabled and encourage the far right neo-imperialists in their historical revisionism, lest japan become full of stinking commies, and so people who mention the rape of nanking as a bad thing on japanese radio have a pretty good chance of being sent death threats by the yakuza, if they don't find that the radio station's sponsors are themselves being threatened by the yakuza.

who, like most groups of gangsters, are also a far right political group ontop of being leg breakers and extortionists.

Just because there are people who buy into revisionist histories, and indeed, get offended when someone attacks the tissue thin structure of the revised history they're bought into, doesn't make it a good thing or even something that is acceptable.

is this not the very definition of rascism?

Actually a definition of racism is; "a system of oppression wherein one group of people - believing in a false racial construct that says that another group is subhuman - bashes the other group of people over the head with a rock, enslaves and routinely rapes their children, forces them to convert to the oppressor's religion and then has the audacity to call the entire ghastly edifice of oppression civilisation"

[Kai]

Vaughn, I think Donna Darko got your question...thanks for stopping by.

Donna, thanks for picking it up!

Rachel, Kevin, well either way Ally Work is definitely a good place for people to check out who want to learn more about all this...who knows, maybe it can be extended along the lines Kevin has in mind...

Huang Wei, in that one short comment, you've managed to pack in a lot of ignorance: 1 fallacious flip ("if a white person said..."), 1 whiny-white-privilege card (white people are "hurt" by talk of racism), 1 assertion of colorblindness, and 1 wrong definition of racism. I'll go ahead and call this a rough start, but keep reading and thinking about these issues and things may gradually start making more sense to you. Good luck.

R. Mildred, thanks for settings things a bit straighter there; I mean, if we're gonna compare racism-deniers to WWII-atrocity-deniers, let's get it right. And I know how you get your history right. And hey you're one of the only people I've seen with the guts to throw down a definition of "racism"; and it's a good one!

For the record, I generally work from a definition of "racism" along these lines: Racism is an institutional system of power and exploitation, consisting of an interlocking set of economic, political, cultural, and social structures and beliefs, which systematically ensure the unequal distribution of resources, privilege, and influence in favor of the dominant racial group at the expense of all other groups.

Kinda boring and laborious compared to R. Mildred's!

[huang_wei]

What I'm getting from these responses is that white people are hypothetically commiting a wrong my being offended at the topic of racism.
OK, if that's what we are saying.
That we are justified in making broad sweeping statements that group an entire race of people together, because they have historically been the oppressors.
If we are all OK with that, then fine.
Racial bias, specifically white supremecism, is quite universally active to this day, and we all know it.
However it hurts me to see that this is the methodology we use to fight it.
I look into my own soul and I see dislike of white people. An emotional response that I can't deny, only control. I hate it in myself, and I will never be ok with it, and it will probably never go away.
By the way, saying you don't hate white people doesn't remotely make it so.

[Kai]

Huang Wei, criticizing a system of exploitation and oppression isn't hatred, actually it's love for humanity. Listen, it's not showing any love for white people or anyone else to turn a blind eye to racist social injustice, I mean you're not doing any favors there. And effective anti-racism must be rooted in love. I think an anti-racist's respect and love for all people, including white people, is best expressed in the honesty and hope of one's words and vision, even if those words sometimes sting, as honest words sometimes will. But I think that with good words and open hearts we can gradually disentangle this whole racism thing, get ourselves liberated from all this, including that remnant of anger in your own heart; because I believe that the fibers of humanity holding us together are stronger than the dehumanizing forces of racism tearing us apart.

[donna darko]

Criticism is a form of love. Your mom criticizes you and not the guy next door because you are her kid. We're also talking about people who are already activists who look for critique.

[Jen*]

I am so glad that I ran across this blog. Wrestling with how long to maintain a racist semi-friendship has had me in 'education mode' for a while, now. Explaining life to someone else is hard enough, without dealing with the defensive knee-jerks that come whenever the slightest insinuation is made that a person might be racist.

You summed it all up here: "If white folks disavow and destroy all the systemic advantages and interlocking privileges and perks of whiteness, then they're off the hook! But you can't enjoy the lifelong fruits of the legacy while disowning the accountability, right? That's not how it works."

But there's really no way to hit it home, unless people are in the right frame of mind to hear it. If they have no inkling of their privilege - there's no dialogue, only defense.

[Joan Kelly]

Also love R. Mildred's definition of racism.

And maybe I am being repetitive by saying this, but in regards to white people being "naturally" defensive or not, when anyone is "making broad sweeping statements that group an entire race of people together", to me it's like this: if enough people of a group are doing something - even though that group may have a spectrum of differences separate from the thing they are all similarly doing - then they are the ones hurting anyone who resists that commonality, not the folks who notice it. And, really, cry me a river about that particular type of hurt, where someone is "mistakenly" lumped in with harm-causers.

Huang, your words read to me like you're saying it's regrettable, but seems inevitable to you that white people are incapable of not-being defensive. And also like you are trying to approach that fact with sensitivity, almost like you are worried that being "insensitive" to that will be a nail in the coffin of things ever getting better? Almost like, white people need help to not be hateful, and maybe the only thing you can control is your own hatred towards white people?

I hope that I'm reading you wrong, because I don't think it's fair for you to feel like it's up to you to do that work while others get to be coddled. I also don't think it's your job to think better of white people than that - I assume (again perhaps incorrectly?) that you feel that way because it's what your experience has been. So I don't think it's your job to have a higher expectation of white people, but I do think it's your *right*.

[Temple3]

Great post Kai. Ain't nuthin' changed 'round these pahts.

If I could modify Zinn at all I'd like to say you can't be neutral in FRONT of a moving train. Aren't the only choices left or right? And that's really not intended as an analogy to political parties - after all, they're playing the same game - regardless of whether or not liberals have come to embrace their inner Malcolm X - Chomsky - Greider. Simply, retreat is not an option - and neither is walking head long into 15 tons of accelerated, indifferent metal.

[Xanthippas]

Anti-racism is a rewarding but grueling journey which must be consciously undertaken and intrepidly pursued (both inwardly and outwardly) if one hopes to make serious progress along its twisting passageways and steep inclines. There's no static end-condition at which an anti-racist can arrive and definitively declare, "Hallelujah! I am Not A Racist!" Rather, it's a lifelong process of historical education, vigilant self-interrogation, personal growth, and socio-political agitation.

Not to belittle your point, but this makes it sound as if everyone is born mired in racism, and must spend their lives attempting to purge themselves of it and never quite succeeding. I believe that America is considerably more racist than many people think it is, but I don't think racism is a personal affliction all of us must battle through our lives.

I think this opening paragraph sets the bar pretty high for the white liberal who desires to avoid being labeled a racist. How is the white liberal to live up to this exacting standard? How is he/she to know if they've succeeded or failed? It seems that they cannot; instead, they must be judged by others.

Frankly, I think there is a lot of confusion in this post between the white liberal and the white non-liberal. For example:

Obviously the record of white liberals when it comes to racism isn't good. Now I know that white folks frequently bemoan the guilt-laden burden of inheriting the racist legacy of their predecessors; to which I can only respond: If white folks disavow and destroy all the systemic advantages and interlocking privileges and perks of whiteness, then they're off the hook! But you can't enjoy the lifelong fruits of the legacy while disowning the accountability, right? That's not how it works.

I can think of no white liberal I personally know who rejects the idea that the legacy of racism is something that they personally can inherit. None. Speaking as a white liberal, I am constantly reminding conservatives and non-liberals that I talk to that you cannot escape the burden of racism simply by saying "Well I'M not racist so why should I be blamed for what my ancestors did?"

In fact, it seems to me(in trying to read between the lines) that what you're complaining about mostly are liberals/progressives who-upon getting called out in the blogosphere for being stupidly insensitive or dismissive of issue of race-react dismissively or angrily towards the people of color calling them out, usually demeaning and further offending people in the process. When people of color get angry about that reaction, that's something I can completely understand. And in fact, of the times I've seen that happen, I can safely say that I have always been on the side of the minority arguers, not the huffily offended white liberal/progressive.

But there's also a large community-I would say the overwhelming majority-of white liberal bloggers who are sympathetic to people of color, talk regularly about issues of race, are not paternalistic or condescending, and don't stick their foot in their mouths when it comes to the subject of race or minorities. And it seems this post unfairly lumps them in with the white liberals who are not sensitive about issues of race (or who devalue the issue of race to make their other political points.)

[Kai]

Xanthippas, hehehe you're a white liberal in a POC space lecturing the rest of the room on the realities of modern racism and dismissing anti-racist critique as "complaining". How shocking, and not racist at all. Thanks for the instructive insights on matters which surely you understand better than people of color. (You read between lines? Me too.)

[Kai]

Jen*, welcome!

Joan Kelly, very nicely said. I like your formulation, "having the right" to expect more of white folks. As always, you a rock star!

Temple3, true true, that Zinn train has people on board and also people out front awaiting impact! As always, thanks for stopping by!

[Deoridhe]

Not to belittle your point, but this makes it sound as if everyone is born mired in racism, and must spend their lives attempting to purge themselves of it and never quite succeeding.

That seems a very apt description of rowing up white - though I would exchane "everyone is" to "racially privileged individuals are".

[Kai]

Deoridhe, yeah the word "everyone" in the mind of a white liberal really means "white people", because that's "everyone", right? This is a common example of the kind of covert racism that white liberals are usually blind to, which is particularly funny because it's what this essay is about but most white liberals obviously will not want to hear it. Most fundamentally, you'll notice that Xanthippas continues to center the delicate feelings of white people, which are more important than the actual racism itself; and it's somehow unfair to subject white folks to the judgement of people of color on matters of racism and who is or isn't an ally. Hilarious. Anyway thank you for dropping in! ;-)

[Cerberus]

As a generally introspective white man, I've been struggling with this a lot lately. That is, recognizing my own racial bullshit and systemic racism coming from being privileged by society because of my race. I am not asking for a cookie for that.

I think the white men thinking anti-racists are angry at white men comes from false displacement. They think that black men are angry at whites, because when "allies" open their eyes a little and see a glimpse of the true depth of the problem, they hate themselves and white people and thus have a hard time imagining that those who have spent an entire life knowing, who actually have to suffer the ill effects would actually be able to handle it better (and there is some more internalized racism in that line of thinking and failure to understand).

The problem I think for white "allies" is that there is no store at which to exchange white privelege. No Goodwill box. It's a long fight and struggle against one's own societally enforced behavior that requires constant thought (because of that same privelege) and a lot of white liberals can't take that because of their own faults.

So they displace it back. Whine about how guilty they feel, worry about the blacks rightfully taking equality by force (because hey, whites would deserve that), and so on and so forth because they can't handle the truth of honest and productive debate on race and working that long hard road of removing all the garbage that inhibits a real end to racism which must always begin with sympathetic people in the oppressor class being willing to honestly and earnestly listen to the life-experiences of the oppressed class and not dismiss them out of habit.

And you are all probably going "no duh, whitie, welcome to the class."

And therein lies the problem, we allies are late to the party and that problem lies with us and us alone. We need to change, because we're the root of the problem. Without us, there wouldn't be a problem.

So anyways, thanks for all you do and helping folks like me really get to the roots of their problem even if that isn't your primary focus.

[Trevor Stewart]

I think ending racism will require people to understand that while we are all blameless for the racism that infects our society and culture (we did not ask for this history and its legacy, even if we were born into it) we are all responsible for ending it. That means thinking critically about how racism functions and acting to contradict racist ideas, attitudes, and institutions that separate us.

Because of racism itself and the privilege that is its historical legacy, all this is hard for white people to see a lot of the time. That is why some white people respond defensively. Deep down we feel bad about ourselves or angry about how the reverberating impacts of racism have hurt us.

So for white people, I think it helps to really discover how liberation of non-whites is actually the liberation or ourselves.
The truth is we don't have anything to gain from holding on to racism and the privileges that are its legacy. We in fact have a lot to gain from working to end racism and the false security of our privilege (including the false security that comes with the privilege of merely feeling guilty and not actively working to end racism).

Ultimately we get to have better, richer relationships with both white and non-white people, be more connected in the world, live our true humanity, and leave a safer more humane world to the future. We couldn't ask for more in this world.

Trevor Stewart

[Kai]

Cerberus, Trevor Stewart, thanks so much for your thoughtful comments and reflections!

[Judy]

As a person dedicated to ending racism, as a person struggling with guilt, fear, and remorse, as a person wanting to be a part of this dialogue about race, I am thankful that your blog was pointed out to me, Kai, by a friend, in her efforts to help me overcome my disease. I realize it is up to me to do the work, commit the time and energy, take the reactions of fellow whites. I hope to join an Allies list. Thank you for reading my first foray into the blogosphere.

[Julian]

Another great post, Kai. Brilliant.

I've sent the link to tons of people.

[michelle]

Nanette wrote: I went through a conversation that pretty much hit on all of the above, with the added goodies of positioning people of color as the racist oppressors of white women (who are in interracial relationships). What made it so freaky was that the discussion was at a usually pretty anti-racist site, with usually pretty anti-racist white folks but (as one person described it) everything was like a carnival funhouse, with things upside down and different in the mirror and crooked and just very, very strange.

I was in that discussion, too.

I have since seen one of the white participants in that discussion lauded all over the place as an uncomplicatedly anti-racist white person in this part of the blogosphere.

It makes me wonder what kind of accountability there is for the white people who are generally accepted as "allies" when those people do what white people often do -- follow the script of racism/white supremacy at certain points.

In other words: I know that it is often *said* that white people have an ongoing process, but how do things actually function in reality in this part of the blogosphere? Does anti-racist function in some cases as a portable identity for white people, something that is "reached" and then can be carried around as a sort of attribute or possession -- or is it action and only action, which might change at any moment? (eg the usually great "white anti-racist ally"may at any point act just like other white liberals if something hits too hard on the areas of comfort that are too sacred to be broken down)?

And it's so weird because here I am, a white person feeling constrained from naming names of another white person and white-dominated site, feeling like I need to sort of keep it a secret unless someone else decides to go there. I'm feeling like this at least partly because I see that that person is so lauded as a white anti-racist in this part of the blogosphere, and because I see that that blog site is often on the blogroll of POC blogs. Feeling like it might hurt something to say the specifics. Feeling like maybe there is some role that the white anti-racist allies play in relation to POC blogs that I seriously don't understand, and that I might actually damage by telling the truth. Something deep and not to be messed with.

(BTW Kai, you and I met on Sylvia's blog at various points, I was posting under my old blog name at that time, askwhy or Always With the Questions)

[Julian]

The truth is we don't have anything to gain from holding on to racism and the privileges that are its legacy. We in fact have a lot to gain from working to end racism and the false security of our privilege (including the false security that comes with the privilege of merely feeling guilty and not actively working to end racism).

This is addressed to Trevor, but is for the whole group discussion.

I appreciate your comment very much, and just wanted to add that U.S. white people, especially white men like us, have, in fact, an awful lot to gain from this system, and we do as it is currently set up. A short list of these benefits includes: living relatively comfortably on savagely obtained or stolen land, having enough food to not go hungry every night, on average being paid more per hour of work, being paid for our work--unlike most women and children around the world, including many women of color and white women here, having clean/potable water to drink, not having to watch our babies perish from massive (not anecdotal) malnutrition and diarrhea, not being systematically raped or forcibly sterilized by white men, not being followed around in stores, being among a group disproportionately able to go on cruises to lands where brown people live to admire the scenic views while ignoring the poverty, being perceived and represented as "the honorable center" of a white male supremacist-impaired world which reveres us white men as "the standard" of being human, living a life where European values, practices, and worldviews are commonly represented as "how things are" naturally, inevitably, or by virtue and beneficence of a Christian whitemale skygod whose will be done, not ever being called the n word by a white person who seriously means to demean you, enduring anti-Asian epithets, living in a neighborhood where you don't worry about whether you child will make it home from school alive--every day, not having U.S. sports teams exploit and trivialize "our" people's culture, or strange representations of "our people," the luxury of thinking of ourselves as "just plain human,"--or, when asked "What are you?" getting to answer with our astrological sign, living lives without the perverse and projected stigmas of being "the criminal element," "the illegal aliens," "those people taking away our jobs," lazy, crazy, irrational, stupid, and disease-ridden.

We have a lot to lose, which is why we tend not to do much about ending white male supremacy. I don't say this to discourage your (or my) efforts to challenge racism or sexism--sexism impacts half of all people of color negatively, after all. I say this because if we think we have nothing to lose, we're going to be mighty confused and ill-equipped to deal with the rage or callousness we meet in the faces of fellow white men who know damn well what we have because of our past and present race/racism, among other forms of oppressive control and subordination.

I don't expect to be racism-free. Hurtful dynamics in my friendships with people of color are evidence that my racism is strong and in place, that I am too often reluctant to maintain a posture of listening (as Pearl Cleage recommends) when engaging with people of color on subjects of race and gender, very often unwilling to name (or be conscious of) my own racism, sexism, and classism spilling sloppily out of my mouth, without the help of the friend of color naming it over and over again for me until I "get it." I can't say if I'll ever "get it." In my life, whiteness is powerful force, reinforced in me each day I am not actively challenging it. And even on those days...

I strive to work with full accountability to activists of color to radically transform those oppressive institutions and to compost Western Civilization.

I think working on being less racist, while challenging institutionalized white male supremacy is a worthy effort for any white man, to (hopefully) lessen the incidents of overt racism and sexism people of color who encounter us have to endure, and to demonstrate to ourselves that we can value a realizable notion of freedom for all from gender, race, and economic tyranny, among other systems of powerful harm and privilege. As a Jew, I think often about "the good German" in Nazi Germany, and as a white man here, now, I want to die knowing I wasn't one of them.

[michelle]

Julian, I've noticed a decided lack of discussion about "how specifically the white supremacist system gets to us" among those who claim to be white anti-racists.

From what I've seen, there's an evangelical quality of "now I have been enlightened and you can be too!" to the whole thing which I feel lacks grounding in and sustained attention to the actual reality of how this thing can get our participation and agreement.

Like for example: I know a white person who told me that she is seriously pleasurably seduced by the power of defining and feeling/being authoritative -- she told me she experiences her own practice of domination as an emotionally positive experience. That's the "reward" side of the thing as I think about things, and that's not where it gets to me in particular.

No what gets to me is the "threat" side -- the system basically communicating: " I will do horrible things to you if you don't do it my way, and being white and living as you do with your feet planted firmly in stolen land and on the bleeding backs of others .. this is your protection against the deep horrors of hurt I can and do cause to those who aren't in my good graces and you know what THAT means" (as a Jew this has a particular resonance, maybe you know what I mean).

This is just how I understand it, not categories I feel are applicable to everyone. But the lack of attention to this kind of thing -- in what I have seen -- has bothered me for a while and your comment seemed to try to be going in that direction which I appreciated.

[Julian]

Hi Michelle.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and your earlier writing as well. I appreciate you raising some really good and sensitive points, with both posts above.

I just hope I can reply to the last one adequately, it deserves a careful, thoughtful reply. Let's see what I can do here, for now, and keep going if necessary, OK? I write this with a caveat: that Kai doesn't wish or need for us to "take it somewhere else."

Kai, I leave it to you to set whatever boundaries you wish to here on this portion of the discussion your post has generated. And thanks for generating it!

Michelle, I think I am as guilty as most at taking on a holier-than-thou and/or evangelical quality in some of my online writings. I sure have been accused of it, and I won't be so silly as to assume everyone bringing me this critique is "out to lunch"! Although if I only here this assessment from other white men, I'm less likely to be concerned, to be honest. But even then, I do pause to reflect on how I am using power in that exchange, and to what end.

So I can reflect on my own writings, as well as those of others, when contemplating your questions.

This is so important to me, and yet something I carry so much pessimism about simultaneously: "how this thing can get our participation and agreement."

My struggle, one among many, is to not let that pessimism get the better of me. To remain hopeful against almost all of the evidence that corporate white male supremacist/Western Imperialist powers are, well, "winning." What is won becomes a whole other story... the more rapid destruction of us all?, with the most vulnerable suffering unduly in the very mean time? The most powerful are winning luxuries, to be sure. I just saw, on 60 Minutes, a segment called "The Captain of Capitalism" about the white tycoon Tom Perkins, former Board member of Hewlett-Packard, who is known, among other things, for firing women who were in top positions in that business, and for owning the most expensive yacht ever built... for himself, needless to say. I think anyone with privilege has some form of "an easier time of it" which says nothing about the quality or depth of humanity the privileged carry around while so benefiting.

Thank you for locating this conversation as one happening in blogland. Blogland is a unique kind of community/communication space, and Yolanda and I have discussed often how such a space does and doesn't function to create meaningful, respectful community.

I find, increasingly, that people who "talk politics" (on progressive to radical blogs such as this one) must, implicitly or explicitly, agree to the meanings of some terms, and to share some core values, such as what "accountability" and "responsible engagement" means. Especially those of us who are whites and/or men who call ourselves "anti-racist" and/or "anti-sexist" in our political/personal practices. The "verb" issue is critical here, because I don't think I can afford to claim to "be" anti-racist, exactly--well, not if I value being honest and truthful with you and everyone else here. I can behave in an anti-racist/anti-sexist way, or not, at any given moment.

If that sharing of terms and values hasn't been established, all hell breaks loose pretty easily, in my experience.

Your white friend values being/feeling/behaving "authoritative." I know many white Westerners for whom this is true, especially those who have been part of the Academy. My poorer white cousins, who barely escaped high school, aren't as prone to take this tone with me, for example, because I have been to college. My uncle carries far too much shame for not being "well read." He is a very bright man. He knows a lot about subjects I know nothing about, and what he knows about is far more useful in the real world that what I know, yet his, and my aunt's intelligence, is called into question by those who have the power to name "who is intelligent" and "what kinds of intelligence are to be most valued." (Note: it appears non-evangelical spiritual and emotional intelligence aren't near the top of the list of what is valued, according to the most powerful.)

In my experience, there are implicit norms of "who is intelligent" (and who gets to be arrogant in the use of that very partial form of intelligence), and my cousins, aunt, and uncle don't fit the bill. Nor do many poor and working class people, many men of color, and many women, unless addressing themselves/ourselves to those we structurally and interpersonally oppress.

Your white friend says she is seduced by using that tone or form of communicating with others, or, perhaps, "to" others. I'm willing to bet that as a woman she has known what it is to be demeaned, dismissed, objectified, condescended to, and invisibilized, by white men. So I first wonder if she is utilizing this white privilege (with/to other women--to other white women, or primarily to women of color?) because she doesn't have it with white men. Just a hunch. Taking my cue from the feminist women of color I know, this explanation wouldn't excuse her if she's using this tone and tactic to demean or silence other women, and, if focused even occasionally on women of color it would be racist in those instances. So no excuses, but explanations are often useful, for me, anyway.

I think unrecognized shame--the inability to know that one is feeling shame, the inability to own that shame responsibly--to not make others chronically responsible for me feeling it, for one thing--is another key component in why people, including myself, "behave badly." But of course those of us who have race and/or gender and/or class privilege can get away with "bad behavior," and emotional self-unawareness, a whole hell of a lot more than can those without it. I can get away with saying a whole lot that Yolanda couldn't say to white men online, because I'm not going to be stigmatized as she will be, automatically and unconsciously, perhaps, by those who refuse to see her humanity, and who assume that because I'm white, male, and Academy-educated I possess anything resembling "humanity."

Moving on to the threat side of this matter of systemic privileges.

I'm not sure I fully follow the next paragraph you wrote: who is the "I" in "I will do horrible things to you..." Someone who's located, in that interaction, as the oppressor or the oppressed? Or is the "I" a white person confronting another white person on their racism? I'm sorry I'm not tracking that in what you said. I welcome your clarification.

The threats of the oppresssed to the oppressor, structurally speaking, are not backed up with institutional force. So individuals can hurt one another, no matter their political location, but the consequences, overall, will be quite different for people with privilege than for those without.

A heterosexual Black man can verbally assault Black lesbian women publicly, and they may respond self-defensively to protect themselves. But they, relative to his lone self, will be called "a dangerous gang." (Of course any Black man in the company of other young Black men in the United States will also be seen by the media as "a gang.") That the heterosexual man's individual's group of misogynistic male supremacist brethren--white and of color--may not be with him in that precise moment doesn't mean they aren't there, in spirit, or, more concretely, in court, and in the homes of women, lesbian or not.

The white male placers of nooses in a tree will not be called committers of a serious, deadly threat, by the powers that be. But if an Muslim Arab man in this country in a public space suggests that white men should be hanged from trees, he'll be immediately identified as a "terrorist" and may be swiflty swept away to another country for "rendition."

No matter that these acts of whites putting nooses (empty or not) in trees, or men threatening (or more) women, is backed by and infused with white male supremacist power against African-American men or women of all races; these acts, named with political accuracy, will not be spoken about in elite, privileged society as tactics and tools of subordination: the promise and reality of mass murder of people of color, and the promise and reality of rape. Some punches which land on white male flesh will result in a Black young man being initially charged with adult felony counts if he expresses himself physically in such a fashion.

Are you here wondering how we whites hold one another accountable in places like on blogs? I want to be sure I'm close to following the issues you are raising.

[michelle]

1. Ditto on Julian's comments to Kai, above.

2. So Julian,

You wrote: Your white friend says she is seduced by using that tone or form of communicating with others, or, perhaps, "to" others. I'm willing to bet that as a woman she has known what it is to be demeaned, dismissed, objectified, condescended to, and invisibilized, by white men. So I first wonder if she is utilizing this white privilege (with/to other women--to other white women, or primarily to women of color?) because she doesn't have it with white men.

You know what? Please just don't try to "explain" this from afar. I mean, who are you to do that, anyway, knowing so little of the actual situation?

First of all why do you assume my relationship with her is best described by the word "friend"? I re-read my comments and I didn't specify who or what we are to each other.

More importantly: Your assumption centralizes white men and it just doesn't fit with this individual's reality. For one, she is a lesbian (as am I). For another, her father died when she was 7 and he was way more loving and supportive of her than her mother was. For another, white men are not the majority of people she currently works with, not her boss, and not the only customers who hassle her.

She has been messed with as you describe -- but by institutions in this white supremacist patriarchal system. And from everything she has told me, the direct agents of these institutions in her experience are as every bit as likely to be white women as white men.

And your causal relationship, that she is doing this "because she doesn't have it with white men" is just so so messed-up. She is doing it because she is white in this cultural system and has very thoroughly taken in what that means in terms of feeling the world. Because she has chosen THIS way to cope with the power dynamics that flow in this horror, she has chosen THIS way move through the world

3. You wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow the next paragraph you wrote: who is the "I" in "I will do horrible things to you..." Someone who's located, in that interaction, as the oppressor or the oppressed? Or is the "I" a white person confronting another white person on their racism? I'm sorry I'm not tracking that in what you said. I welcome your clarification.

That "someone" -- I am speaking of the Yurugu system itself (have you read Marimba Ani's book Yurugu? That's what I mean). The European/white supremacist system. This abomination that I have a relationship with.

I myself personally feel it as a relationship. I feel it as an entity, in certain ways, and my struggles with it as the struggles in relationship to an entity.

That is the "I" in what I wrote that you quoted. That horror of a system that never should have power but has so much.

4. You asked Are you here wondering how we whites hold one another accountable in places like on blogs? I want to be sure I'm close to following the issues you are raising.

Mainly I started actively following this thread because I am drawn to struggles re: white liberal, white feminist, white progressive and "white anti-racist" practice of racism, because the hypocrisy and dynamics of those patterns REALLY GET TO ME HARD. And I see these patterns both online and offline.

And I got active in the discussion (with my first comment) because I saw Nanette's comment, which I personally feel is very very important in its implications.

I don't know exactly why I posted that second comment. It's likely what I was saying in that second comment wasn't as connected to what you said as I initially thought it was .... if that makes any sense.

[Kai]

Julian, Michelle, you're more than welcome to hang out here and chat as long as you like...I just need to catch up on what's being said, is all! ;-)

[Julian]

Hi Michelle.

I have never heard of the book you mentioned, but am today arranging to get hold of a copy of it. Thanks for bringing it into the conversation.

I apologize for doing the obnoxious "explaining from afar" thing, and for centralizing white men in my gross misunderstandings of the woman you were describing.

I will speak directly from my own experience. I see people with some forms of privilege and not others "use" the privileges they have in compensation for what they don't have. It's not causal exactly. It's not A leads to B.

For example, I know poor heterosexual Gentile white males who cling to [unnamed as such: Gentile] white identity or homophobia or anti-Semitism because they don't have economic status. They seek to feel "good" about themselves, in their social identity--valued, statused, empowered, and grossly misuse white privilege as a way to do this. Male privilege, it seems, is not enough for these males to feel statused and powerful, which is not to say that they don't act on that too in gross ways. But being poor, in this sense, is "emasculating" to them. I see heteromale supremacy and Christian/Gentile white supremacy and capitalism, or the combo, as central in making this an option for them to try and gain status and power in these ways. I hope to gain deeper insight from the book Yuruga.

Here, on Kai's blog, for example, I simultaneously reinforce and counter patterns of whiteness [and male and class privilege] every time I post a comment. That's why I don't, any longer, believe that I ought to call myself "antiracist" or that those of us who are men ought to call ourselves "antisexist" as an identity.

Increasingly, I see it as a practice only, but one that has to happen within some system of accountability, including but not only a "system" that is a bunch of friends or acquaintances or responsible strangers who will (not without difficulty) call one another out on white male supremacist (or other privileged) shit, as you have, above.

This gets us back to someone you mentioned. I think effective antiracist practice would be to call out any white person who uses "antiracist" as a badge, an identity of pride, etc. If it is, more concretely, a series of practices, of actions, including speech acts, then we get out of the trap of calling ourselves "anti-racist" and setting up people with expectations that we will always behave in an antiracist manner. I know several women--lesbian and not, and several gay men, myself included, who have been deeply disappointed to see how white heterosexual and gay "profeminist" men behave without being at all accountable, without taking any personal/political responsibility for their/our behaviors.

And, perhaps more importantly, this becomes a way to engage those with privilege and entitlements in a manner which develops accountability. I hope white women call out that white woman who calls herself racist but practices racism arrogantly or without careful self-reflection upon it being brought to her attention. I hope that task is not left to women of color.

I imagine there are many here who could speak to this more effectively and less ignorantly than I can. I find what you say about dealing with this as "an entity" compelling: how do we live, ethically, responsibly, inside a system in which we are a part; how do we, particularly those of us without structural power and access to resources, survive it while fighting it? Perhaps I have too much privilege to know the answer, or even to speak effectively to this question. I am increasingly aware of the limits of what some of us call "consciousness." There is, in me, a gap between awareness and action, and I am still trying to figure out what's in the gap, besides gross self-preservation as a privileged being.

I'll add this: I don't think individuals behaving better "equals" radical structural change in society, in non-social institutions, not that it's either/or. It's both/and. But part of my own frustration with white male supremacist liberalism is its insistence and preoccupation with focusing on the interpersonal at the expense of the institutional and larger social and asocial/antisocial structures which reward those of us with any form of privilege, and teach us how to behave from an early age, from generation to generation.

A focus on the interpersonal may help achieve a more immediate and necessary goal of individual oppressed people being less frustrated, demeaned, and insulted when around those who occupy positions of power and privilege. But the machine, so to speak, or ever present system that is without and within, is still grinding out those values and reinforcing those practices. I am an agent of many things, some that contribute to freedom and dignity for more people, and some that do not. But me spending all my activist time "working on myself" is a liberal ideal, not a radical one, in my view.

Given that, I am finding it radical, not liberal, for men--heterosexual and gay--and Gentile whites and Jews--women and men--to be responsible for and name what we do that hurts and oppresses others. And to at least be caringly responsive when we can't ourselves name it.

[michelle]

Hi Kai, thanks for the comment and the okay!

Julian you wrote: I think effective antiracist practice would be to call out any white person who uses "antiracist" as a badge, an identity of pride, etc. If it is, more concretely, a series of practices, of actions, including speech acts, then we get out of the trap of calling ourselves "anti-racist" and setting up people with expectations that we will always behave in an antiracist manner.

I don't feel I know what "effective antiracist practice" is.

But I personally feel the white anti-racist identity -- whether the claim is explicit or implicit -- as very often deceptive and hypocritical.

And you also wrote: I am increasingly aware of the limits of what some of us call "consciousness." There is, in me, a gap between awareness and action, and I am still trying to figure out what's in the gap, besides gross self-preservation as a privileged being.

I feel that gap is actually cultural. I know you're getting hold of the book I mentioned (which I hadn't realized til I just did a search wondering if you had found it in a library or were borrowing it from someone or trying to buy it -- and hey! hey!! it's finally back in print!)

Anyway there is also an online excerpt that IMO is relevant to both of these topics:

http://www.africawithin.com/ani/excerpt_chap6.htm

[Julian]

Hi Michelle.

A proverb, found on this site among others, that I have always appreciated is this one, usually attributed to the Igbo of Southeastern Nigeria:

"Until lions have their own historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter."

Thank you so much for leading me to that section of the book. I found it really helpful for this discussion. I'm going to post a couple of comments in a row, but this one is not primarily my words, but rather an excerpt from the section of the book Yurugu, by Marimba Ani, 1994, Africa World Press, that you led me to.

For any other readers here, I will excerpt a bit of what you just led me to:

It is an inherent characteristic of the culture that it prepares members of the culture to be able to act like friends toward those they regard as enemies; to be able to convince others that they have come to help when they, in fact, have come to destroy the others and their culture. That some may "believe" that they are actually doing good only makes them more dangerous, for they have swallowed their own rhetoric-perhaps a convenient self-delusion. Hypocritical behavior is sanctioned and rewarded in European culture. The rhetorical ethic helps to sanction it. European culture cannot be understood in terms of the dynamics of other cultures alone. It is a culture that breeds hypocrisy-in which hypocrisy is a supportive theme a standard of behavior. Its hypocritical nature is linked to the Platonic abstraction, to objectification, to the compartmentalization of the person and the denial of the emotional self. Below Havelock characteristically understands the case:

Another thing noticeable about them [pre-Platonic" Greeks] in this period is their capacity for direct action and sincere action and for direct and sincere expression of motive and desire. They almost entirely lack those slight hypocrisies without which our civilization does not seem to work.

The distinction and definitions that can lead to a better understanding of the Europeans and their culture can only come from a perspective that is not one of European chauvinism; for it is the method of European chauvinism or cultural nationalism to conceal European interest. As I use it, "value" is only meaningful value; it is that which motivates behavior and is the origin of human commitment. Value determines what is imitated and preserved, what is selected for and encouraged. "Avowed values" on the other hand, which are merely professed, which find expression only verbally, which are not indicative of behavior, belong to what I have called the "rhetorical ethic."

The European rhetorical ethic is precisely that--purely rhetorical--and, as such, has its own origins as a creation for export; i.e., for the political, intercultural activity of the European. It is designed to create an image that will prevent others from successfully anticipating European behavior, and its objective is to encourage nonstrategic (i.e., naive, rather than successful) political behavior on the part of others. This is the same as "nonpolitical" behavior.) It is designed to sell, to dupe, to promote European nationalistic objectives. It "packages" European cultural imperialism in a wrapping that makes it appear more attractive, less harmful. None of these features represents what can culturally be referred to as an "ideal" in any sense. The rhetorical ethic is, therefore, not dysfunctional in European culture.

It does not generate nor reflect conflict in European ideology or belief-system; but it is, rather, necessary to the maintenance and projection of the utamaroho and performs a vital function in sustaining European cultural nationalism in the pursuit of its international objectives.

The rhetorical ethic is made possible by the fact that hypocrisy as a mode of behavior is a valued theme in European life; the same hypocritical behavior that its presence sanctions. Again, "value" refers to that which is encouraged and approved in a culture. European culture is constructed in such a way that successful survival within it discourages honesty and directness and encourages dishonesty and deceit-the ability to appear to be something other than what one is; to hide one's "self," one's motives and intent.

[Julian]

In response to your last comment, Michelle:

I agree with you that the "gap" I mentioned is cultural, as long as we agree European "culture" is primarily, in terms of effect at least, as much a white male supremacist political force of domination and mass murder especially or disproportionately against adults and children of color around the world, and white women and white children, more so girls than boys. In this sense, a European-American male cultural worker's "work" could be accurately seen as a terroristic and genocidalist, if his "cultural work" is to promote the oppressive Eurocentric values and practices of European society. As Marimba Ani and you note, such a gap, is "something" more than it is "nothing." Put another way, personal inaction can be a very political activity. Maintaining my "gap" between responsible being and action is a politically expedient practice of conditioned-while-conveniently unconscious or purposeful deception.

Michelle, you wrote:

"I personally feel the white anti-racist identity -- whether the claim is explicit or implicit -- as very often deceptive and hypocritical."

The messages in this thread weave together well to back up the statement that Euromale supremacist society and its dominant, and exported, culture leads us as white people, who are raised in that culture, to practice those oppressive interpersonal politics, in part due to the propensity for self-delusion and interpersonal deception. You respond responsibly as a white person in acknowledging: "I don't feel I know what 'effective antiracist practice' is."

This whole discussion helps me grasp my own behavior and that of other whites, especially, in my case, that of white men. It gives language to something that I think is frustrating and oppressive precisely because it is never verbally expressed by us (accurately) when we let people know "who we are, what we value, and what we do." What we don't express or "own," we can claim to not be doing. (Huh? What? You talkin' to me?!)

How many times has the oppressed called out the oppressor to then have the oppressor say "What?! I didn't even DO anything!" The Jewish understanding of sins of omission could fit in here as well, which brings me back to "The Good Germans" of Nazi Germany: it's what they didn't do, as much as what they did do, that was complicit with the formation and maintenance of HaShoah's death camps.

I have many times thought one of several of the most radical things white male supremacists can do is tell the truth about ourselves: our behavior and society. This is why I find your statement about not knowing what effective antiracist practice is to be radically honest.

As Yolanda Carrington notes, white male supremacist behavior can be found in anyone raised in such a society, a point which is mentioned and linked to above in Kai's post, but is re-linked to here.

Given that you and I are white, my understanding is that we, as white people who strive to be antiracist in practice, must be systematically responsible to people of color, when encountering a white person whose practices are racist. We must call them out, address the behavior or practices, directly or with appropriate support, if calling someone out could result in physical or emotional harm coming our way.

As Kai and Yolanda make clear, it is part of all of our upbringing, socially/culturally reinforced--in the home and family, in media, in other social/political/religious institutions, in interpersonal behavior--for us to "not know" what we are doing, or to deny it, to call it something benign when it is, rather, malignant. But I work to keep my critical lens on fellow men's sexist behavior, and other white people's racist practices. I have called out a white Jewish woman for being antifeminist and misogynist, publicly, in print. I try not to make a habit of this, however.

By "effective antiracist practice" I am first of all speaking here about action by white people directed towards one another, in calling out, naming our own oppressive shit, and creating accountability among us, which, if done effectively, lessens the burden on people of color to have to do this work. One way or another, this is work that must be done, daily, interpersonally, and by more organized groups of whites who are committed to practicing anti-racism. (Any good Marxist would be correct to note that this is, still, "liberal" activism in one sense, and organized activism against State government and its agencies and agents must be part of "our work" as people practicing antiracism and antisexism. Not that most Marxists, in my experience, are strong on antisexism and antiheterosexism work.) We can only be effective, though, if we are directly accountable to people of color who can and do name our own shit that we haven't learned to acknowledge, be responsible for, and demonstrably change.

I mention this last bit because I have known many U.S. men of many races, and many whites of whatever gender who "choose" who we will be accountable to: a strategy of maintaining control and oppressive power. Obviously, in many instances, it will be those with whom we share social/work/home spaces who are going to be most likely to "catch and name" what we are doing.

I am simply stating that I do not trust men, alone, to call other men out in ways that are systematically responsible or helpful to women. Nor do I trust whites to do this in ways that will benefit people of color systematically. This distrust is born of my own experiences in so-named feminist/profeminist/antiracist gatherings, groups, and organizations: which use these terms unaccountably as nouns (kinds of prideful identity) not verbs (kinds of political action).

I have known, to be precise here, some white profeminist men who live with or are good friends with radical feminist women. Some of these men--let's call this the rule with few exceptions, do not practice antisexism and antiracism consistently enough to make them/us safe to organize with, relate with, or otherwise work with. These white men, know, through their history of experience and the use of male supremacist practices and dynamics, that the radical feminist women they have chosen to be especially close to will not call them out in crucial moments that, for example, may threaten the existence of the relationship. This allows many so-called profeminist men to keep up their appearance, which again knits neatly into the passages from Yurugu noted earlier, as well as your own comments and experiences.

I do not believe, therefore, that white male supremacist behavior should be hidden or protected, even if (or especially if) done "in private" let alone on blogs or otherwise publicly. No woman I know is obliged to "ask my permission" to report on how I am treating them or other women, but this reporting does need to be done responsibly. I believe it must be women and men of color who define what constitutes sexist and racist behavior, as well as what is "responsible." In all white or overwhelmingly environments, which have been a norm in my life, it must be white women and women of color, when present, who decide what is "responsible" and "misogynist" or "sexist" not white men, when addressing male supremacist behaviors.

So, let's use the example you raised earlier: someone of prominence publicly claims to be antiracist or antisexist, and counts on that identity, that status, within progressive-to-radical circles to gain unjust and/or abusive access to oppressed people or to speak irresponsibly to or about oppressed people, thereby strengthening, not weakening white supremacy. That person must be called out publicly, clearly--without mincing words, but not without compassion or respect necessarily. Such individuals, in this view, are not entitled to rights of privacy around those behaviors, specifically. Everyone deserves to be treated with some standard of human decency, but again, it is not for U.S. whites and men to (as usual) define those standards when people of color, and all women, respectively, are negatively affected.

Around most U.S. men and white women there is no effective system of accountability in place; we behave in ways harmful and hurtful to to women of color, for example, and there is no consequence that impacts the doers of the harmful behavior in ways that result in them/us being safer or more responsible.

Imagine a "U.S. White Male Supremacist Systematic Practices Offender Registry"? How many areas of any map of a white-dominant region wouldn't be marked as "potentially hostile and dangerous to people of color"? And how many areas men live in would be identified as "safe for women"?

[michelle]

(I don't know, Kai, maybe at some point you might regret saying Julian, Michelle, you're more than welcome to hang out here and chat as long as you like. We're white, we're Jews, and between us we've got a LOT of words going on here :)!)

So to proceed with the deluge pretty much because it feels good to me to do so:

Hi Julian,

You wrote: Given that you and I are white, my understanding is that we, as white people who strive to be antiracist in practice,

As a point of clarification: I don't make that claim about myself. I just do not. No. It is not accurate because it is not about grounded reality (what I claim I "strive for" is really beside the point as I see it).

My actions speak, ALL of them, and a great deal of the time it's not pretty or "antiracist." And for sure, the effects of my actions do not come from what I might claim to be "striving for."

And the second part of that statement: must be systematically responsible to people of color, when encountering a white person whose practices are racist. We must call them out, address the behavior or practices, directly or with appropriate support, if calling someone out could result in physical or emotional harm coming our way.

IMO the first part and second sentence can pull against each other in some circumstances. The second sentence is a "must" statement defining strategy that in my feeling might be too rigid to accommodate some situations where there might be harm to people of color for what we do. Because we don't necessarily take the brunt of the worst consequences that come from our own actions.

So like, me: I have a pretty deep-seated desire to call out racism/white supremacy when I see it (most especially when I get indications from people of color that what I am seeing is there) -- not because I am or strive to be "antiracist: but for really selfish reasons. I have a thing about telling the truth, have had this since I was tiny. That is what feels good to me.

But I have actually been in multiple situations in which me acting like that either did or would have been actually opposed to stated decisions/direction/feelings from people of color, whose strategies or priorities didn't include me doing that (sometimes for purposes or reasons that I agreed with but sometimes for purposes or reasons that upset me or that I resented, but simply weren't mine to define). So then, is it my place to say, "This is what a white person should do um hmmm!" in a situation like that?

You wrote: So, let's use the example you raised earlier: someone of prominence publicly claims to be antiracist .... and counts on that identity, that status, within progressive-to-radical circles to gain unjust and/or abusive access to oppressed people or to speak irresponsibly to or about oppressed people, thereby strengthening, not weakening white supremacy. That person must be called out publicly, clearly--without mincing words, but not without compassion or respect necessarily.

"Must"?

Well, to me it seems you are deciding and declaring "the" strategy here, pretty much in the abstract, without very much information and without checking with anyone else. You are giving me a universalized directive based on a situation you have only heard about in the abstract. But. Check out the thread a little more closely, Julian. Whose lead do we follow? What do you advocate for in other parts of your comment on this point?

While writing my comment that you mention -- I didn't know what I thought I was sensing, didn't know if it was anything or nothing, didn't know where it came from or if its source was bullshit in me or not. I have since learned a little at least about a perspective I never would have guessed, not because it is a mystery at all, but because it is not centering white people and I would never have thought of it, let alone felt it (there may be more on this someday, but not here and not now.)

You wrote: such individuals, in this view, are not entitled to rights of privacy around those behaviors, specifically. Everyone deserves to be treated with some standard of human decency, but again, it is not for U.S. whites and men to (as usual) define those standards when people of color, and all women, respectively, are negatively affected.

You are deciding on your own, with little specific information, what this is about -- deciding it is about the perpetrators' rights to privacy. You are deciding that any issues of treatment with human decency in this case are about treating the white people that way (juxtaposing that against the "but" that comes next. Well, ok, that's one possible way to understand the situation, it, but is by no means the only one. And from what I do know it seems like it's probably not particularly accurate for the situation I was writing about.

So. To me, your above comment feels really conflicted. On one hand you write about taking the lead from people of color on racism (for example). On the other hand, you keep pulling back toward being the one to define things, what must be done and how, in areas (race and gender) where you are part of the oppressor groups.

It's almost like you can't speak without eventually making declarations. It's like you don't seem to feel okay with asking, noticing, learning, wondering very seriously and consistently whether you really do see what is going on. It's like at some level it feels like your place is to define and declare and decide, and somehow you are doing that -- even as you actually define and declare and decide that that's not your place. (if that makes any sense outside of my own head).

[Julian]

Hi Michelle.

First of all, I had to laugh at your note to Kai, and I second it: Kai, you giving us a forum on your blog could be the "thumbs up" you soon regret!!! Shut me up any time you wish to, Kai. I am personally known for being verbose and for having graphophilia; correctly or not, I like to attribute some of that proudly to my Jewish heritage and culture: we are an argumentative, expressive bunch, overall, and at Jewish gatherings I've been to there is rarely the deadly silence that I've experienced in white Gentile settings, such as over the dinner table. There is some merit in the Jewish axiom: "Two Jews: three opinions."

Second, I really hear you. You raise some really excellent points, including about how I use language. I'll say this not so much as a "defense" (although, G-d knows, I am fully capable of being defensive!) but as a context reminder: my views are not "mine" alone in the sense you are alluding to. I have listened for decades to people of color, most especially feminists and Womanists of color about antiracist/antisexist practice; not that it shows, necessarily! But one thing I have taken in is the costs [to people of color] of white people NOT calling one another out, for so many reasons. I carry my own ethics, my own choices, and those are "mine"--I mean I do own them as "mine." But it would be utterly dishonest and arrogant for me to claim that I arrived at them in some vacuum, or "came upon them" within myself. I definitely did not, even if they are "tainted" by my own privileges and are, in that sense, not reflective of the wisdom I've received from people with far fewer privileges, people who have lived with horrendous experience of white male supremacy's misogyny and racism. I know heterosexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, some ableism stuff, the pain and oppression that comes with living once as a child (a while ago now, but I remember). I know that stuff "in my bones." I use that knowledge and experience as points of reference to empathize with those whose experience is beyond that scope, or inclusive of it and also beyond it.

I regret using the word "must" at all, above, and really hear (um, now that you've called me on it!) how problematic that is. Of course every situation has its own subtleties, perhaps--although I also know, from experience, that privileged people like myself can find subtleties where there often aren't any, as in "No, see, you don't understand; in THIS case that charge of me being racist or sexist doesn't doesn't apply, and here's all the subtle reasons why." Uh-huh. What is clear is I don't know very much about the situation you were referring to earlier and am clearer now how little I know. I don't know most stuff, but there's some stuff I do know enough about to speak about with confidence, or at least the willingness to put my name with my published words and claims. For example...

The critique I mentioned was of the white Jewish writer--Ariel Levy--for her misogynist/antifeminist preface to Andrea Dworkin's book Intercourse, the 20th anniversary edition. I stand by those terms, and, again, didn't arrive at that conclusion in non-feminist isolation--everything I've learned about feminist analysis has been from women; I was, however, the first person to speak out loud in feminist circles I roam in about the details of just how, exactly, the preface was so problematic; I suspect this is only because I "got to it" so soon after the book hit the shelves; Nikki Craft encouraged me to write out my critique for publication, and helped with the analysis too once the project was underway, through until it was done. And I am shocked at how many profeminist men and some radical feminist women don't see that preface as deeply misogynistic and how problematic it is that it appears in one of Andrea's books. As for "me" writing the critique: radical feminist women I know personally, who are my friends, did not and do not agree on whether or not I should have written it--well, to be more precise, to have it published; I don't think any women I know would give a shit if I wrote it out and kept it out of the public sphere entirely. Especially since her death, I feel a combination of pride and passion in defending Andrea's work and person from misogynist verbal and written assaults (I post my critiques mostly on white men's blogs, btw, of what white men disgustingly say and write about her). I feel I made "the right" decision to have it published--by Nikki, with Nikki's overall counsel and intellectual and creative input.

At every point in my days, I make determinations about what I will and won't do. Of course there's plenty I do--here on this blog alone!!!--that is unconsciously obnoxious and/or replicating of white male supremacy. To all that I do I am accountable, unless I'm being a real defensive or obnoxious jerk and use my privileges to (to attempt to) absolve myself of any responsibility, which is not the norm for me (geez, I hope!), but it can and does happen.

I really like how you put it about antiracism not being something you "strive for" and perhaps it would be more honest for me to say I do what I do and it has the effects it has, and hopefully I'm accountable and make myself accountable--not waiting to be called out, I mean. But I really do strive to better myself in certain ways, and being more and more conscious about my own white male supremacist behavior, attitudes, values, speaking and writing style, is among those "strivings."

I have given up on becoming someone who, white and male in this system, born and bred, so to speak, will be able to behave most of the time as someone who doesn't have the privileges I have. I accept that I speak as a white man, sometimes or often in problematic ways, but hopefully often in ways that challenge other white men about our racism and sexism. To believe I can behave in unsexist and unracist ways would be naive and foolish, which is not to say I don't strive to do this in less and less obnoxious, oppressive, or silencing ways. Your comments give me pause. I will continue to reflect on them.

I really appreciated you sharing what you did about your own approach to this matter. That's a good learning for me--I find much of what you say very instructive, useful, wise, in that it opens me to new possible ways to handle things, and makes me question much more deeply how readily I make assumptions about circumstances, and am ready to "declare" my position as "the" position. G-d knows, I am a work in progress and tend not to carve much into stone, but using a term like "must" seems to have stone dust and rubble all around it.

A great deal of this "wanting to declare myself" in "set" ways is no doubt due to my abundant privileges, and some of it is due to the combo of those privileges melding with ways I have been seriously harmed. I have rather severe PTS, for example (note: this is not a cue for violins!)--I have honestly been thinking about how little I have read/encountered about whites in white supremacy who occupy multiple places, politically, and carry complex histories of abuse and/or neglect; it goes without say that I've found even less reading materials which get at such complexity among people of color in the U.S. Even an anthology by/for people of color on issues of mixed location, complex personal/political histories, and mixed uses of power is hard to come by, in my searches. I know Alice Walker and bell hooks have written about this, as has Kesho Scott and Pearl Cleage. There is plenty of fiction by women of color that gets into this, but I'm not much of a fiction reader. I find that human complexity in my friendships instead; and friendship is a good place to find complexity.

I am so aware that coming into contact with an excellent book, like Andrea Smith's Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, reveals how much has yet to be written, and not by the hunter.

I was truly shocked that I'd never encountered and read Yurugu, as I've done very specific online searches for books exactly about that subject!!!--which is partly why I'm so appreciative you mentioned it. I know that the one or two books about the politics and lives of white folks (from a radical antiracist/antisexist point of view, that is) is likely to get published first, and will become, perhaps, the book on the subject, so to speak, to which people of color will be referred by caring white therapists, who believe white experience isn't a minority perspective.

I realize me taking up this much space here is a glaring example of some of my privileges. I could choose to shut up, not that anyone is suggesting that just yet. But I don't shut up because I think I have something to add to the conversation, and anything I say on a blog I see as existing in social/communal space, where others can speak as well, assuming I don't hog up the whole of the conversation. And the jury is out on whether that will happen!

Kai's and Yolanda's blogs are the only one's I contribute to in a regular, communal way; the rest I visit to express critique of the bloggers or commenters, again, who are generally white men, usually heterosexual and Gentile as well.

[michelle]

What is clear is I don't know very much about the situation you were referring to earlier and am clearer now how little I know.

Well, and there's a lot I still don't understand, myself. So I don't know what will be of use over time, including your suggestions (offered as suggestions rather than declarations, they're fine IMO).

Conquest -- I love that book. Love the clarity of how Andrea Smith perceives the world.

Yurugu has been a sort of sanity-check for me. I came on it totally unexpectedly and randomly years ago, got it from the library, then later totally lucked out that I then decided to buy it used pretty much right before it went out of print. I have been going back and back to it. It crystal-clearly describes so much of what I have felt is going on all around, like felt for my whole life -- but I have always wondered if how I feel things is just me being, well, kind of insane. And I still may just be insane, for sure! but that book gives me a glimmer that maybe *just maybe* the stress and dissonance between my perception and what is all around me (that I have deliberately and from a space of relative privilege chosen to learn how to navigate in) is not only about my personal craziness. Which IMO says something about how and why I have been involved in (or near?) areas of struggle against racism/white supremacy, it's really a pretty selfish thing for me to do because of my own struggles about what is reality. And I feel like that selfishness means there are particular ways my actions and choices may be untrustworthy or otherwise not useful in the struggles against white supremacy.

Anyway, glad that my mention of the book was useful for you!