Jackson Free Press

Robert Jensen, a UT journalism professor and the author of an intriguing new book, "The Heart of Whiteness," writes on Alternet about what he sees as white people's fears:

It may seem self-indulgent to talk about the fears of white people in a white-supremacist society. After all, what do white people really have to be afraid of in a world structured on white privilege? It may be self-indulgent, but it's critical to understand because these fears are part of what keeps many white people from confronting ourselves and the system.

The first, and perhaps most crucial, fear is that of facing the fact that some of what we white people have is unearned. It's a truism that we don't really make it on our own; we all have plenty of help to achieve whatever we achieve. [...]

A second fear is crasser: White people's fear of losing what we have -- literally the fear of losing things we own if at some point the economic, political, and social systems in which we live become more just and equitable. [...]

A third fear involves a slightly different scenario -- a world in which non-white people might someday gain the kind of power over whites that whites have long monopolized. One hears this constantly in the conversation about immigration, the lingering fear that somehow "they" (meaning not just Mexican-Americans and Latinos more generally, but any non-white immigrants) are going to keep moving to this country and at some point become the majority demographically. [...]

A final fear has probably always haunted white people but has become more powerful since the society has formally rejected overt racism: The fear of being seen, and seen-through, by non-white people. Virtually every white person I know, including white people fighting for racial justice and including myself, carries some level of racism in our minds and hearts and bodies ...

Talk among yourselves.

Previous Commentsshow

Bumpity bump. Here's one to chew on. (I'm getting this book asap to review.)

DonnaLadd

Jun 10 2006

I didn't include this paragraph after the third one, and should have. I think it really hits home that many whites are afraid of being treated the way they treated non-whites and/or allowed other whites to treat non-whites. Even though whites likely can maintain a disproportionate share of wealth, those numbers will eventually translate into political, economic, and cultural power. And then what? Many whites fear that the result won't be a system that is more just, but a system in which white people become the minority and could be treated as whites have long treated non-whites. This is perhaps the deepest fear that lives in the heart of whiteness. It is not really a fear of non-white people. It's a fear of the depravity that lives in our own hearts: Are non-white people capable of doing to us the barbaric things we have done to them?

DonnaLadd

Jun 10 2006

I also think that another characteristic of this "whiteness" thing is that we believe we should never have to be made uncomfortable—whether it's through being the only white person in a room or going to neighborhoods that are majority black or certainly in conversations about the results of past (or present) racism. Certainly, there are exceptions, but Jensen is discussing the culture here. Kudos to him for trying to bring difficult topics to the forefront. Being uncomfortable never hurt anybody.

DonnaLadd

Jun 10 2006

Sorry, but you lose me after this part: The first, and perhaps most crucial, fear is that of facing the fact that some of what we white people have is unearned. It's a truism that we don't really make it on our own; we all have plenty of help to achieve whatever we achieve. [...] Oh yeah, all my life I've been rolling in that "unearned" stuff. Or perhaps someone can clarify what he meant? I don't know about the rest of you, but my upbringing was more in line with Casey's rather than a Trump or Walton or a Hilton. Call me back when he writes something true, okay? (Touchy Subject, sorry)

Ironghost

Jun 10 2006

I know it's touchy, Iron, but bear with it and try not to be defensive or too uncomfortable with the topic. Talking about the topic doesn't mean you agree with everything he said; I don't know what I agree with yet or not—except for the last quote I posted. I believe strongly that many whites are afraid of the same things being done to them if others get in power. And this kind of discomfort over simply talking about the issues is what keeps the conversations from happening. Let's flesh it out a bit and see what we can all learn from each other. Think of our great discussions about hip-hop and the n-word, instance. If we can hang through those here together, surely we can make it through a discussion of how our "whiteness" affects our perceptions. ;-) Personally, I can attest that I have been given opportunity, or benefits of the doubt, as a white blonde woman that many poor blacks wouldn't have gotten so easily. I *know* in my bones that is true. Does it mean that I regret those opportunities and hate my white self? Hell, no. It just means that I'm willing to be honest about it and see how I can use the benefits of my opportunities to ensure that more folks get them. And there's something deeper here to be sought out, too—why people who deny to the bitter end that they could ever do, or say, or publish, or condone anything remotely racist turn around and get so defensive about any slight inference that they might, even unpurposefully, be perpetuating a racist stereotype. A local blogmaster comes to mind. He hates me personally because I pointed out that he had allowed somethign to post something very racist on his site without commenting on it, or deleting it, or anything else. Instead of thinking about why he did that, or would do that, he attacked me for pointing it out. He still hates me for it, and has spent some three years telling lies about me. And I know it goes back to that one instance. (And I even deleted what I wrote because I realized his skin was so thin about it, which I've learned not to do because they then just lie about what you said.) The point is that there are major issues here that need to be explored. That doesn't mean there are right and easy answers, but there don't have to be for greater understanding to result. Let's fasten our seatbelts and give it a whirl. We white folks sure don't have anything to lose. (Joke)

DonnaLadd

Jun 10 2006

I've never been given an opportunity: being White and Male has done squat for me. Being from Mississippi has earned me nothing but disdain from some people who rush to prejudge. I can't imagine starting a discussion exploring all the "chances" I've had. If you want to speak in general, that's one thing. But to tell me that I've had those chances when I haven't ever had them is.... I'll have to shut up on this one. I'll go find something else, sorry.

Ironghost

Jun 10 2006

I think a large part of this is a misunderstanding about what institutional racism is, and it's a misunderstanding that is propagated by political opportunists on both sides of the political spectrum: Namely, that participation in institutional racism is something that people choose, and that choosing it makes them a bad person. It isn't, and it doesn't. But by the same token, it's important to realize that being victimized by institutional racism is also something that people don't choose, and something that doesn't make others bad people. We have evolved as a society to the point where we no longer say that leprosy, or cancer, or even HIV-AIDS, is God's punishment for sin. But we haven't evolved to the point where we no longer blame people for their own poverty, for their own "lack of manners," for their own marginalization from the keys of power. There are some very kind and compassionate affluent whites. There are some very cruel and insensitive low-income black folks. The reverse is also true. What we need to get past is this whole whole Fate idea that anything that happens to a person is his or her own fault. We've done that in most areas of life. We haven't quite done that yet with respect to institutional racism and institutionalized poverty and the effects that this might have on people. As for "earned" versus "unearned": My one point of disagreement with the article is that I'm not sure, in any cosmic or absolute sense, that we earn or unearn anything. We don't birth ourselves, raise ourselves, we don't create the air we breathe or the food we eat or the ground we stand on. We use those terms to refer to our transactions within a given system, and by the standards of that system, the riches of the affluent are not unearned, no matter what role institutional poverty--or its distant cousin, institutional wealth ("old money")--might have played. If you played by the rules, the money is yours according to our system of capitalism. Our stolen merchandise is so far removed from the actual act of theft as to reduce our personal culpability, in most cases, to a negligible level. That's not the issue. The issue is the huge gulf that separates the fortunate from the unfortunate, and what we can choose to do--in the interests of justice--to bridge that gulf, to give everyone fair opportunities. Not necessarily equal opportunities--that's a utopian ideal. But at least an honest fighting chance. And right now, the most severely yoked victims of institutional racism, of institutional poverty, don't even have that. We can all work to change this. The fact that I am fortunate, and I have played by the rules, does not change the fact that I participate in, and benefit from, an oppressive system. And my conscience dictates that I become willing spend at least a reasonable chunk of my lifetime working to make the system less oppressive, less unjust. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 10 2006

Well, don't shut it down so fast, Iron. It never hurts to consider whether someone of another race, with your same circumstances, could have done as well as you have—maybe they had even less "squat" to help them. That's just one way to have empathy and understanding; doesn't mean you need to apologize. And the thing that gets in the way of this kind of discussion is when white folks take it so personally. No one is attacking you personally. Where did you get the idea that someone is trying to make it personal against you? It's not like Jensen wrote this essay leading: "Ironghost, This one is for you." This is a typical kneejerk reaction—that being willing to participate and think in this kind of cultural conversation about race somehow means you're going to be judged as a person. I just don't get that leap into defensiveness. And the author addresses that a bit at the end of this essay. I bet he really gets into in the book, for better or worse. Frankly, one of the reasons white Mississippians get "prejudged" so easily is because we often say exactly what you said—that we're not part of the problem, or the solution and, thus, have no need to talk about it. Meantime, we vote to keep racist symbols, and turn our backs on re-segregated schools, and blame poor people's plight solely on themselves, rather than everything our people did to keep blacks from having either wealth or political power and then the ability to model it and pass it on. White folks are *so* far ahead in that department, although the gap is slowly closing. Kind of. Again, I'm not saying *you* did that, Iron. But you can be part of the conversation about it. What can it hurt? It reminds me of that conversation I had with the man who is doing that puffy ad campaign for Mississippi (that claims, inexplicably, that we don't have monster trucks). He means well, but he just hasn't tried very hard to understand other points of view, it seems. Thus, defensiveness permeates his message. Why should I keep apologizing for stuff that happened 40 years, he asked me. Meantime, I wonder if he has ever apologized once for those things. Maybe he has, and it's up to him whether to do that. But why the obsession on why he shouldn't have to "apologize"? It's sugarcoating, or whitewashing (pardon the pun), that's the bigger issue. Sugarcoating that leads to bad policies and us being stuck at No. 50-ish because we can't figure out that, as a state, have to sink or swim together (with a nod to Willie Morris there).

DonnaLadd

Jun 10 2006

Nice post, Tom.

DonnaLadd

Jun 10 2006

Speaking more to the topic, and less of myself... The white half of society, as I'll term it, gets defensive because it is accused personally from benefiting from a system that is in place. It may not be a system we ever thought of, or even approve of yet it is our sins for which everyone is ready to judge us on harshly. The system is what could use tuning. What needs help and why, however, are hard to agree on because of the lack of trust and certain lack of cohesiveness towards a central goal. We'll never achieve utopia in this regard. Without hard work, however, his "final fear" about how the minorites will become the new "majority" and subjugate everyone else will certainly come true. I have little faith in man.

Ironghost

Jun 10 2006

...and if that doesn't get me banned... I should quit posting when I'm not thinking clearly.... Just delete it.

Ironghost

Jun 10 2006

The white half of society, as I'll term it, gets defensive because it is accused personally from benefiting from a system that is in place. But, is that really true, Iron? Just above, you kind of took the topic personally, and I pointed out no one was trying to make it personal. Are you certain that happens in a widespread way, or is that a kneejerk reaction. (Said with respect, understand. This is tough stuff.) I like your second paragraph. But, again, I wonder if we could get closer to that impossible utopia if white people would work a bit harder at getting past our fears. Hell, we can't usually have this kind of discussion, much less reach some sort of consensus with folks of another race. And, no, you won't get banned for saying that. You are attempting to have honest dialogue. Of course, on that final fear, the best way white folks can help gurantee that that won't happen is probably to have these conversations and show compassion and empathy. It's kind of a paradox, really. It's always intriguing to me to hear people who've never considered "apologizing" in their entire lives ("I didn't do it!") then complain about people of color not "forgiving." I do have faith in man—of every race. Faith is vital.

DonnaLadd

Jun 10 2006

BTW, Iron, few people have been banned from here—probably two dozen, if that, in nearly four years. People I see complain about being banned on others blogs are still members—but don't like to be challenged. So they go around pretending they've been, er, "censored." We never ban anyone for an opinion—only the way they try to take over, or squelch, discussions of ideas they'd rather not hear expressed. Or, for getting really nasty.

DonnaLadd

Jun 10 2006

For whites with relatively little racism in their souls and actions, I think it's simply a matter of "birds of a feather flock together" - plus not putting out a conscious and deliberate effort to be around "different" kinds of people (whatever that happens to mean in any context, not just race). Admittedly, it is a pretty easy habit to get into - sort of like high school cliques, albeit on a different scale. It just takes a lot of self-effort to choose to associate with the "different", which means our society needs to constantly and deliberately train itself to break out of the usual mold.

Philip

Jun 10 2006

I've been sitting here, re-reading the posts and telling myself to 'shut-up' don't say a word! :o) Obviously, it didn't work. I can only speak for myself as a middle-class white female in saying that I don't agree as an individual, but do see as an overall whole the basic meaning's being brought forth. As an individual that does not relate to this 'fear' I would much prefer to express disdain, unfortunantly, I see much of the context outlined within members of my family. I am an educated, white woman within a middle class economic structure that does not feel uncomfortable in a situation in which I am the only one in a room. I attended Jackson State University, by choice, as my department is one of the best ones in the state. Throughout my education of undergrad, it was rare that I actually had a class with another white, and most times were in the minority. I never had any feelings of superiority because of my race, but had what would be considered normal peer competitiveness. I do not feel that I have obtained ANYTHING that I didn't put forth blood, sweat and tears for, due to my race but have no doubt that at some time, my race might have been given precedence by others. I do not feel guilt for the misjustices that others suffered at the hands of my ancestors, yet I feel shame for behaviors that were unjust to an entire group of people based solely on the color of their skin. I cannot change the past but go forward into the future. Overall, I see my role in this new world as one that is very minor. Not wanting to allow prejudice toward a group of people, by others, dictate my actions....I judge others on their behavior, not skin color. I believe the biggest part that I, as an individual play in the problem of racisim is simple....I am raising my children to NOT see color, but yet behavior. This is a small part within a huge problem, however, if all parents made the committment, black, white, Asian, Latino, etc. to this same purpose, we WOULD SEE AN END TO RACISIM!

Katie D

Jun 11 2006

Very compelling, Katie. One thing to consider here is that the argument may well not be that whites haven't worked hard for what they/we have as individuals. It's the "mythology" of our history *institutionally,* which is being discussed right now NPR if you hurry, that has created this aura of privilege, and that blinds white folks to the opportunities we've had that blacks may not have. That does not mean that we as people has not worked hard. So one must really strive to hold a few thoughts at once here, I think, to understasnd the premise of the essay. Katie really seems to be doing that. One question that comes out of your post, Katie, is what else can/should we go in order to, perhaps, shatter the mythology of our history (which leads to faulty rationalizations such as blacks are better off due to slavery)? My argument is that we cannot, and will not, have policies that truly address the historical inequities of opportunity (acquired wealth, confidence, networks) until we truly face why/how these inequities got there in the first place. Our history teaching, especially in some schools, is so woefully inadequate on these points that we have a lot of making up to do.

DonnaLadd

Jun 11 2006

Also, there is the very large issue of personal vs. institutional, which they just talked about on that show, too. (I'll see if I can find a transcript.) But they addressed exactly what Iron and I were discussing above—the tendency to take an institutional society problem personally, and then say, "well, I don't feel that way," and then be done with the topic. That clearly hasn't worked, so how can we do it better?

DonnaLadd

Jun 11 2006

Intriguing site. (Look at it carefully before you jump to conclusions.) Here's an essay on the site that caught my eye, being that we've had a lot of discussions about what "racism" is, and isn't. This also speaks to the idea of "seeing" racism: Racist white people believe colorblind white people are deluded to think that being white is not important. Alternately fearing the pervasiveness of colorblindness and bemoaning its refusal to acknowledge white culture, racists hope someday colorblind people will believe once again their interest lies in being overtly racist. Racist white people have a more difficult time with race savvy whites who know race does matter and being white makes a difference. Race savvy whites do not shy away from discussing white identity and culture, but they frame their interests in creating multiracial structures, and working for racial equality, justice and harmony. We emphatically endorse the race savvy model. Able to see the racial structure of society as it is, race savvy white people are the racists’ worst nightmare. Colorblind white people see racist white people pretty much for what they are, and that "something" is not what colorblind white people want to be. But colorblind white people more often than not are ineffective in working to undo the racist model. Unable to see race, they cannot see racism. Blind to color, they are blind to white culture as well. In a racially structured society they are unable to change a structure they fail to see. Rather, they rely on simplistic rules. To be conscious of race, a colorblind person will say, is to be racist. To the colorblind person the racist and the race savvy person seem to be the same. They both see race after all. The race savvy white person understands what the colorblind white person does not. Being white makes a difference. Whiteness forms the center of our society and as long as it does, we cannot have a society centered on multiracial values. The irony of colorblindness is that by not seeing whiteness, it keeps whiteness centered. In this the racists might find some small ray of hope. Race savvy white people are determined not to let that happen. There is and should always be a place for white people in our society, but it should not be one that controls power and resources of the mainstream exclusive of other racial groups. It should not be a place where others are expected, indeed required to come if they want the privileges of the center. Race savvy white people believe we all must change to create a multiracial center. Race savvy white people understand it’s our special role to work with our own people to bring this about.

DonnaLadd

Jun 11 2006

Quite an interesting discussion. I won't comment, just read.

Ray Carter

Jun 12 2006

Ray, I'm pulling up a chair next to you, over here on the sidelines.

kate

Jun 12 2006

Sounds like what I did on the n-word thread. ;-) Hopefully, not everyone will stay on the sidelines, though, as we try to truly test the boundaries of respectful discussion!

DonnaLadd

Jun 12 2006

I'm waiting to read Knol and Tom Head's responses to this.

JSU

Jun 12 2006

I happen to agree with lots of what the author says. I desire to stay out because I've been accused orf being an angry and domineering writer on issues of race. As anyone should know by now I'm not reluctant or afraid to tackle this issue.

Ray Carter

Jun 12 2006

In my own mind, I like to think I have a unique view on racism. My parents are *very* liberal, and I went to a high school in which I was a minority (40% Asian, remaining 60% pretty evenly divided between African-American, Hispanic, and white). My friends were from all races, and it never seemed to be an issue. My college -- not so racially mixed. Mostly white. That threw me a bit. Then I moved to the south . . . lots of racial diversity, but not a lot of intermingling (so unlike high school!). I *know* that I have benefited from being a white woman: perhaps it was easier to get put in the advanced placement classes or get a job at 16. From a generational perspective, I know being a legacy student helped me get into my university, which may not have admitted my parents had they not been white. Without that generational impact of 1950s racism, would I be where I am today? Would my parents? I recall -- as I am sure we all do -- being discriminated against just because of our age when we were teenagers (I got stalked by security in the nice stores, refused service in some restaurants). As I got older and dressed niceer (I was into the whole punk scene), it stopped happening. I remember those experiences because I felt terrible. I cannot imagine having that feeling everyday -- but it is what I try and remember every time people get defensive about institutional racism. Have I worked hard to get where I am? Darn skippy I have. Have I had opportunities that weren't available to other people? I am sure I have. Is that really hard to explain to people? It is. To continue the discussion, I recall while I was at the University of Mississippi School of Law, a number of white students in my class became irate because the African-American Mississippi residents didn't have to pay tuition and had an extra semester to get off academic probation. This was (is?) part of UM's efforts to make the opportunity of law school available to people in a racial class to whom it had been denied in the past. Rather than seeing these programs -- like the government's efforts to hire minority contractors -- as ways to correct what had been wrong for so long (baby steps, maybe, but steps nonetheless), many white students took it very personally: "I'll owe $12,000 and she/he won't owe anything." It is certainly understandable that people have the initial reaction of comparing one to one than racial experience to racial experience. But how do we both acknowledge and then get past that personal reaction? How do we educate? Particularly the adults? How can we have this discussion which is, indeed, a "touchy" subject? I don't want to be silent, but I don't want to offend. Perhaps that is the problem: I need to accept that by speaking out, I will offend someone. Rambling now . . . Newt

Newt

Jun 12 2006

Wonderful comments, Newt. I'm buying the book that Donna referenced also. I know you're right about the goings on at Ole Miss law School. I know many Tougaloo students who went there and endured all kinds of hostility and racism. They got very few advantages although any advantage, no matter the size, would have caused more hatred. Reuben Anderson (1st black to graduate from the law school there) and Constance Slaughter Harvey (1st black female to graduate the law school there) are Tougaloo graduates. I spent a weekend there as Ole Miss tried to rcruit me and others in my class. During the stay I got free tickets to see Alabama play Ole Miss in a basketball game. Ole Miss had one black starter and maybe 2 blacks on the whole team. Alabama had several black players and the starting five were all black. Within a matter of seconds, we were pulling for Alabama. Smile. Later that night as we walked about campus, drunk and drinking white boys drove by and called us the N-word. I'm not buying the book for more ammunition to make whites feel guilty. I'm doing it for the purpose of gaining understanding. The monkey that many whites carry can be so easily thrown off by not participating in racism and acknowledging the truth of it in the past and now. In my opinion, if we can forgive (not hate) white folks for the past and present treatment of us, it seems a small task for white folks to not repeat the activities of many of their older relatives against us. This may include speaking out against known racism.

Ray Carter

Jun 12 2006

Ray, can I just say that I find the last paragraph you wrote very healing for me? Thank you. I'll continue to speak out.

emilyb

Jun 12 2006

Thanks Emily. I have seen lots of fear on the parts of white folks for the reasons set forth above and others. No white person should walk around with the burden of a past they didn't participate in. But if a person is truly beyond racism, he/she shouldn't have a problem standing side by side with others who have freed themselves. Nor should that person become defensive when the subject is brough up. I have lived with and interacted with all kinds, races, and sexes of people. I haven't seen any differences worth noting.

Ray Carter

Jun 12 2006

Very thought provoking link. Thanks for this. I remember, back when I was getting regular calls for papers (because I was just starting out as an author and for some reason badly wanted to get published in peer reviewed academic anthologies), reading about a conference called "Teaching Whiteness." And my first thought was that if Chris Rock wasn't the keynote speaker, it was a wasted opportunity! A few really goood national antiracist organizations I support have "white" conferences and "non-white" conferences. There is some irony in segregating antiracist groups, but in communities where whites make up an overwhelming majority (New England, for example), that's the only way you can really have forums where non-whites are not vastly outnumbered. While I'm in favor of any honest and earnest effort to fight racism, and I recognize that the group is technically multiracial, I would personally have no real interest in participating in it. This is in part because I'm fortunate enough to live in a minority-majority community; because I have already grown up around the legacy of segregated social groups, and don't want to perpetuate it, even for a good cause; and partly because, quite frankly, I don't think the approach works. You remember, I suspect, the bit in The Most Segregated Hour about how the antiracism initiative died when there was a special whites-only antiracism discussion group at St. Peter's in Oxford, no cameras allowed. White antiracism efforts already run the risk of being patronizing and divorced from reality from the get-go, because whites are incapable of ever gaining a firsthand understanding of racism. Putting whites together, separate from non-whites, will create ideological inbreeding--and before long you've created a group full of people with ideological Hapsburg chins. So while I'm in sympathy with the group you've linked to, and think studying whiteness on a scholarly basis is certainly worthwhile, and may even buy some of its books, it's not really for me. Re the article: I like some of the ideas behind it, but I think that, like so many articles on racism, it misunderstands the problem. The issue is not whether whites consciously consider themselves superior. Everyone interested in antiracism has already moved past that. The issue is subconscious bias, white privilege, and integration--and by the terms of those areas of discussion, there's not really any such thing as a colorblind or non-racist white. There aren't "good guys" and "bad guys." As long as whites operate within an institutionally racist system, we are incurably diseased; the best we can really do is treat the symptoms. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 12 2006

(I think the article also highlights an old hobby horse of ours, namely the need to distinguish between conscious or philosophical racism and inertial or institutional racism. On one level, Edgar Ray Killen is a racist and I'm not; but on another level, we both have participated in and benefitted from an institutionally racist system that has stained us to the bone.)

Tom Head

Jun 12 2006

I hope I have time tonight to catch up on this thread. This right here is what attracted me to the JFP. Yesterday at church, a young black male let our worship. I was in TEARS, and my son did not understand why. He got very uppity with me in the car saying "Mommy, it doesn't make a difference what color he is!" I had to explain, why yes Monkey, it most certainly does. Those were tears of JOY for me. I grew up in a church that did not allow black people in. Tears of joy that we are at a better place. Tears of joy that some of my racist (not all...some...) church members would see a young black male in the role of something other than thug. Tears of joy that we were worshipping together. Yes, we have a long way to go. But it was a very special moment for this white chick.

emilyb

Jun 12 2006

As long as whites operate within an institutionally racist system, we are incurably diseased; the best we can really do is treat the symptoms. Can we have a clear definition of "institutionally racist"? If we are all products of such a diseased system, then we're all victims.

Ironghost

Jun 12 2006

Ironghost, there is no question in my mind that we are all indeed victims of institutional racism. Not all of us are victimized in the same way (whites tend to have more opportunities and material benefits), but we're all victims in the sense that this is something that has been forced upon us without our permission, and probably something that very few of us would consciously choose. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 12 2006

(whites tend to have more opportunities and material benefits) I'd argue that poverty erases any advantage being white might give.

Ironghost

Jun 12 2006

That's not true, Ironghost. I grew up very poor, and I definitely got opportunities that black kids I knew didn't get -- and kids who were just as smart as I am. Otherwise, here's a basic definition of "institutional racism" as a jumping-off point. One excellent example of institutional racism is the media coverage of whites vs. people of color. Study after study has shown that media are more likely to report, and highlight, crimes committed by people of color. Even the language used to denote the serious is very different. This kind of institutional racism influences what people think about certain neighborhoods, or cities, and then influences how people make decisions about policies, where to spend their money, etc. A newspaper reporter who only goes to white sources to comment on stories that don't clearly have a direct appeal to non-whites is a victim of institutional racism. They're not trying to be racist, per se, but their actions help create a racist world. The Kerner Commission report gave us a massive warning about this back in the '60s. On the media front, not that much has changed, I'm sorry to report. There are many, many, many other good examples, but media is something I happen to know well, so I'll start there. ;-) And, yes, every white person is a victim of white supremacy. Is is not the racism victims' fault that we white folks are assumed to be racist; it's the white supremacists' fault, and the fault of those who will not speak out about it. I kind of spoke to this in that column I wrote about the lynching exhibit a while back when I said the little white girl in that photo was a victim, too. And was she. She may not have known it, and may have become an oppressor herself, but she victimized into such an awful place. As were many white Mississippians. That doesn't excuse anything white folks did, of course, but I personally believe that racism won't be eradicated in a truly meaningful way until we realize that it a problem every single one of us faces. To Ray: Last week, I was interviewed for a documentary about race relations in Mississippi. They asked me what I would ask black people to do in order to help race relations in the state. I had to think about it, feeling quite strongly that it wasn't my place to tell black folk what they needed to do. Then I said: "Don't give up on white people."

DonnaLadd

Jun 12 2006

And, yes, to whoever said it: Be willing to get it wrong. Be willing to unwittingly offend. The main thing we white folks need to do, I believe, is make the effort and then just apologize if you get it wrong or, hell, argue about what you did or didn't do "wrong" if you need to, in a loving and respectful, wanting-learn-way. I've done that quite a few times, too! I've watched hearts open up as a result of white people simply being willing to make the effort and uncross their arms. The forgiveness is there; we just need to ask for it (whether by words or deeds) a bit more often. And, contrary to the belief of way too many, a little apology never hurt a damn soul. Saved a few, in fact. Lott and Cochran, take note.

DonnaLadd

Jun 12 2006

Kids I knew got chances also. While I didn't keep up with everyone, we've all moved on regardless. Some have done great, others haven't. It doesn't seem anyone's suffered.

Ironghost

Jun 12 2006

Entire neighborhoods and communities are suffering, Iron, because people have not had the same opportunities. There are exceptions, just as there are the exceptions to the entire white neighborhoods and communities where it's been a lot easier to pull oneself up by one's, er, bootstraps. I tend to find that an honest explanation of one single practice, and its effects on Americans of various races, can go further than anything else to help explain to open-minded people how certain of those have advantages that others have not—redlining. It hurts to face it, but it is vital to understand that our institutions, public and private, conspired until very recently to ensure that certain peoples would not build wealth, and thus opportunity and political power. This was the purpose of the White Citizens Council (the one that so many of our relatives joined). It is truly vital to understand the economic discrimination by the government, the business community, political figures and individuals that has created the pockets of poverty at the root of so many of our problems today. Those effects have not been reversed, yet, although some progress has been made. But understanding the causes of disease sure will help us figure out how to cure it. Any doctor can tell you that.

DonnaLadd

Jun 12 2006

A parable: In turn-of-the-century Germany, there was a young opera singer named Gretel who was extremely talented, and she had an aunt, a retired opera singer herself, who was completely committed to her success. Gretel could take on any role that was offered to her, and her aunt knew it--and, indeed, she got most roles she auditioned for. She had a bright future in the business. There was another young opera singer, named Eva, who also had a promising career. Sharing a love of Wagner and card games, Gretel and Eva became fast friends. One day, they auditioned for the same role. Gretel and Eva were the only two candidates who had a serious chance of landing the part. It looked as if it would go to Eva, and Gretel was happy for her--but the day after Eva received this wonderful news, she suddenly and mysteriously died. A devastated Gretel joylessly agreed to take on Eva's role in the production, and dedicated it to her memory. The role launched Gretel's career, and she became a sensation--unquestionably the most famous opera singer on Earth. She traveled everywhere, from Berlin to Paris to Brooklyn. She sang for kings, queens, and presidents. Her success was unparalleled. Twenty years later, Gretel's aunt became ill and was dying. On her deathbed, her aunt made a startling confession: "Before I die, I want you to know that I killed Eva for you. For you, Gretel." Institutional racism is like that. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 12 2006

Also, it's important to remember that poor whites should not be pitted against poor non-whites--even that is a favorite political tactic to divide and conquer (or win office). Thus, we don't have to choose whether to be "for" poor whites or poor non-whites. That may seem obvious, but (white) people's reactions on these types of issues often indicates that they feel like they cannot understand how institutional racism has crippled our country because they were poor, too. OK, that was confusing. What I mean is that it is OK, in fact quite exhilarating, to learn that as a poor white from Mississippi, we do not have to choose sides in some game of "whiteness" vs. "blackness." Mississippians are my people, no matter what their race. Thus, it is my responsibility to stand up for my people when they are harmed, whether in a direct way or due to the results of past discrimination that those still bigoted or blind about it are not willing to acknowledge. And I believe that the first step for us white folks is to just take off the blinders. That doesn't mean you have to write a reparations check. Just be willing look around and consider what kind of effect legally enforced Jim Crow, and the creation of ghettoes, not to mention violent terrorism against people, especially young black men, is sure to have on a community. If the races were reversed, and European-Americans were the oppressed for so long, we'd be climbing the same mountain to get out. It's not so much about apologizing; it's about helping folks climb the mountain and not beating them up every step of the way for being behind, being that they didn't put themselves there in the first place. Empathy. Love. Understanding. Compassion. We white folks don't have to apologize for feeling those things (to anyone, including blacks who are cynical about us). It doesn't mean we hate our race, as the haters will tell us. It means we love folks of other races enough to feel their pain and help as needed, at least long enough to reverse the damage our race did to preserve white supremacy and privilege. We're not there, yet, but we can get there.

DonnaLadd

Jun 12 2006

I believe it was Gandhi who said "Poverty is the worst form of violence." In this respect, I'd have to agree with IronGhost that poverty trumps racism. However, taking that one step further, I'd like to say that I believe that societally imposed poverty by whites against blacks was and is real. It's obvious that poverty was imposed on an entire group of people for hundreds of years. The problem some whites have is that they refuse to admit or perhaps even recognize the lasting effects of that past imposition. After all, "Didn't we pass some laws in the 60's that made all that illegal?" And "Geez, it's been 40 whole years now since racism was outlawed." Institutional and societal racism didn't end because the congress passed some laws. Both are still alive and well. While there are plenty of folks of all races who are STUCK in poverty, the best chances to break out of it fall squarely at the feet of a white person. Others are denied at least some of the meager opportunities. In Mississippi in particular the problem is exacerbated for the poor by concentration of wealth into the hands of a relative few. Yes, I think we still have some 'plantation owners.' They are still alive and well, also. The laws didn't make that social construction magically disappear either, and the sharecroppers and the slaves still have a lot in common. In today's YOYO (You're On Your Own) psychosocial environment, everyone is focused on getting their own. Greed is all the rage these days and many people do not think of community and social strength as being worth much. Except when it comes to war-fighting. It's not hard for me to see 'colorblindness' in the mix here. If I can convince myself that I'm colorblind, greed is just that much more OK: I gotta get mine - I work hard for it - I did it all by myself - why can't you. To that, I say greed is not an unalloyed good: you get yours by helping everyone else get theirs, its always been that way and it always will be - hard work is a given - society provides us with or deprives us of ALL of our opportunities to better ourselves economically - societal problems need social fixes. The tension between utopianism and pragmatism is not new, either. 'Colorblindness' is utopic and affirmative action is pragmatic. Wouldn't it be wonderful if race didn't matter? Since it does matter, we have to face up to it and work to fix it. I think it is important to point out that regardless of the reasons for it, rooted in history or not, it is a distinct disadvantage to everyone in a community if large numbers of its members are not given opportunities to achieve. By suppressing blacks, whites have shot themselves in the foot. Simply put, the more people that have money to buy what you produce, the more you will prosper. A black person's money is just as green as a white person's. And finally, I think we need to get beyond racism savvy to just plain savvy. When race is an issue, be savvy. When poverty and lack of opportunity are issues, just be savvy. Our problems are common problems. We need everyone contributing to solutions. The savvy way to run a society is to have everyone operating optimally - as indiviuals and as groups. But societies don't come with simple on and off switches, they come with slow wheels and long arcs.

PaulC

Jun 12 2006

I hate to sound "simple-minded" on this one, but I try to reduce the economic-racial aspects to this: What do you think poor whites in West Virginia need in order to help bring that state out of poverty? If it's good enough for poor white West Virginians, then deal with (largely) Black Mississippi poverty the same way. What do you think of Cajuns and Italians? If their background is nothing more than an interesting fact of family history, then the same rationale should apply to African Americans. Any time one catches themselves thinking "Blacks are so this-and-that", try substituting "Cajun", "Italian-American" or (my personal favorite) "Irish" (given that Irish often played the same role in the 19th century that African Americans apparently did in the post-1965 era and still do today to a great extent). What I mean by the above is how each individual should deal with black-white relations in a day-to-day interpersonal level. I realize the slavery and institutional discrimination do add a unique dimension to it all. Even so, I've come to believe that, ultimately, day-to-day interpersonal relations are ultimately the strongest influence on a person. That's my way of trying to solve the problem in my own way.

Philip

Jun 12 2006

Racism is a demon constantly hiding just under the surface. We live in a state & society that outlawed racially mixed marriages until recently, where most white church-goers considered intergration a communist conspiracy, & where black and white equality is still being discussed. I think it's dangerous to just stand around and "not be racist". I also think Racism is like a wave, if we don't stand firmly against it, we'll be knocked back down.

Sherman Lee

Jun 13 2006

I have not given up on white people, in large part, because I hate to fail or give up on anything. I do understand why Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X (who later came around again), Lewis Farakan, and many others have given up though. I had the pleasure to be in the company of Stokely and Minister Farakan many times while a student at Tougaloo. They were speaking in generalities and were often correct generally. However, I had many personal experiences with white folks that kept giving me hope. I figure most of the powerbrokers the above persons saw were seriously infected by racism. Racism was, by and large, expected and demanded of those powerbrokers. The most glaring problem I have had with white folks over the years is that many would unhesitantly accept me but not the average black person whom they saw as poor and insignificant. My problem with this is that they're saying, whether known or not, that they can accept an educated, refined, or so-called worthy black person but not the average one. This also says to me that a black person has to accomplish something that very few blacks or whites can just to be freely accepted by the masses of white people. I have met countless white folks like this and I despise this kind as much as I do the obvious bigots and racists. But I do attempt to make this kind see the light before cursing them the hell out too. This type is often salvageable. Then there is the other type of white person who can easily accept me if I stay in my place. However, my place is any where in the hell I want it to be, not where anyone, white or black, says it is. Most of my professional life I have had white men take it upon themselves to plot my future without asking or involving me. I have rejected all of it for the purpose of teaching them a lesson. I simply tell them, more or less, what Denzel Washington told the boss in the movie Glory, "boss, I'm not even doing this for you." My goals are far greater than any boss can vicariously conceive and plot for me. The comments above are spellbinding. I watched Donna moderate an event on Gaine's book, "A Lesson Before Dying." I watched her carefully deal with the issues of race, racism, and injustice. I saw geniune and heartfelt shame, sorrow, regret, pity, love, concern, hope, and a range of other things. Then I saw many other whites filled with guilt, shame, worry, fear and excuses. I saw great anger in many black folks, especially the younger ones. And I tried to share hope. Not sure whether I succeeded or not.

Ray Carter

Jun 13 2006

I have a question. Please forgive my ignorance about this. I'd like to post the text of a column that I wrote for Planet Weekly about a year ago, that concerns this subject. But I don't know if I'm allowed to do that. Am I allowed to do that?

GLB

Jun 13 2006

If you wrote it, it's yours, I assume (unless they have draconian rights policies like The Clarion-Friggin-Loser-Ledger. Post away. You might have to do it over several screens. Or start a forum with it, and link to that from here. You'll probably be able to get the whole thing in one window that way. All else fails, send it to me, and I'll do it for you.

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

You succeeded, Ray, especially with this white girl from Neshoba County. That was the night I fell in love with you ... so to speak. (I think the Missus will understand what I'm saying. )

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

Ladd: Thanks. I'll send it to you, because it's too long to post. You can decide if you want to stick it in here or not. Thanks Again.

GLB

Jun 13 2006

I won't purchase this book either, Ray. for very different reasons than you, though. but I would like to borrow your copy after you've made the purchase just to peek into the author's synopsis, which is right on the money without any generalizations.

JSU

Jun 13 2006

Fine with me, JSU. Thanks Donna. The feelings are mutual. She understands. I hope he does, too.

Ray Carter

Jun 13 2006

Can someone please comment on this aspect of the race problem in America? I'm reluctant to say this, but it appears that the persons in the white community who are the most open to change and improvement along racial lines are white women, not white men. Anyone agrees? Why is this? The white person other than Donna on the race issue who has had the most impact on me concerning race was another white woman named Joanne, who was a supervisor in corporate America. She worked for that company for 30 years or more and wasn't promoted until after the 25th year. She was a remarkable human being that I didn't see any racism within. Her big brother was an oil rich fellow but she refused to stop working, or to succumb to the uppity and racially separating ways of those all around her. I told her before I left Houston that she may be the most remarkable person I've ever met. She certainly was the most remarkable white person I ever met. Believe me, she worked hourly and daily around outright racists who were trying to influence and dominate her, yet she still maintained her affection and fairness toward all people regardless of race, sex or religion.

Ray Carter

Jun 13 2006

Ray, I wonder one small part is because we women have a good idea of what it feels like to be boxed in because of outward appearance.

emilyb

Jun 13 2006

Certainly, I can see why you think that, Ray, and it's hard to argue with, really. However, you need to meet the young white men around the JFP. They are some of the most loving, compassionate and coolest men I've ever met. And that's not to mention all the amazing white men I've met in Jackson who are so determined to make the world a better place, and have a great time along the way: the Jay Lossets, the David McCartys, the Malcolm Whites, the George Schimmels, and on and on and on ... I would also add that the trappings of "privilege" (not wealth) form their own curse, and some of the people I feel the sorriest for are the white men I've met in Jackson who do not have the courage to step out of the past.

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

..Ray wrote -"it appears that the persons in the white community who are the most open to change and improvement along racial lines are white women, not white men. " Because white women are more understanding and compassionate to blacks because they know it's wrong to treat people will malcontent. that's why(back in the day) their husbands would disown them or beat them and call them *igger-lovers for showing love to blacks. It's deeper than you and I can imagine, Ray. So just leave it alone brother. ...Ray wrote -" Anyone agrees?" I do. this is so ever-present in the workplace. white men(from management to the grunts) shun brothers in every way. won't even use the water fountain behind you. talk about you(almost outloud). sad. talk about evil. that's evil

JSU

Jun 13 2006

Oh, and Ray, the Mister understands. In many ways, his support and love for his fellow man is what drives me. I couldn't focus my energies until met him.

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

Ray writes: Can someone please comment on this aspect of the race problem in America? I'm reluctant to say this, but it appears that the persons in the white community who are the most open to change and improvement along racial lines are white women, not white men. Anyone agrees? On the whole, I think you're right. I don't have the polling data handy, but women on average do tend to be more concerned about civil rights issues, for starters, which is probably a large part of why they are more likely to vote Democratic in elections. Why is this? I think Emily hit it right on the head. I'd add that men also get indoctrinated with this idiotic rugged individualism delusion that says "I earned mine and everyone else should pull themselves up by their bootstraps like I did or they don't deserve to be happy," which in the final analysis is basically standard-issue macho bullshit philosophy as applied to race. This is one of the reasons why I'm a feminist. Machismo makes men so incredibly stupid. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 13 2006

Tom, while this is another topic, most guys are raised in that mindset. They're raised to believe that if you want it, you have to go out and get it. It's not stupid, per se, unless it gets out of hand.

Ironghost

Jun 13 2006

I believe that, too, Ironghost. So why does that mean one can't be compassionate toward the plight of others? (For the sake of discussion, not argument. )

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

I think one of the reasons is white males don't understand is because when they "went out and got what they wanted" they had the advantage of being...well, a WHITE MALE. That's the problem.

Lori G

Jun 13 2006

Take out that first "is". And while your at it, fix anything else wrong with the post. I'm on cough medicine. I'm seeing double.

Lori G

Jun 13 2006

The thing that I think distorts the issue most is that "racism" has become a magic word. Racism is just a special category of actions based on prejudices. As such, the remedy is the same as with other sets of actions based on prejudices: if you don't want to live a life governed by your fears, you choose to get to know people rather than prejudge them. If you dont, you don't. Somehow, if I am racist, that is worse than if I choose to discriminate against Republicans, or Bankers, or Clowns, or whatever. There are differences of degrees, orf course, and the impacts can be dramatically different. But the source is the same: in each case the person is relying on prejudice to give them information that they choose to act on, rather than allowing individuals to define themselves.

GLB

Jun 13 2006

Ironghost writes: Tom, while this is another topic, most guys are raised in that mindset. They're raised to believe that if you want it, you have to go out and get it. Agreed, but there's a difference between believing that you have to go out and get what you want and believing that you got what you want solely because you went out and got it. Luck, connections, and cultural inertia play a HUGE role in anyone's success story. I mean, I'm not rich by any means, but I'm incredibly lucky because the first full-time job I've ever had--the job I still have--is full-time freelance writing. I'm fully aware that there are tens of millions of people in this country who would give their right arm and seven toes to be able to have that option. And I got to do this because I happened to know successful freelance writers who broke me into the business. Would I be anywhere without my talent? No. But would my talent have been enough if I were black, living in a low-income neighborhood, hadn't been homeschooled, and was surrounded by people who told me every day that I shouldn't do this writing stuff? No. Are there probably more talented writers than Tom Head living in those circumstances as we speak, who will spend the rest of their lives working menial jobs (if they're lucky), dying 10 to 20 years earlier, and generally having a much crummier time of it? Yes. And that's what privilege is about. That doesn't mean that I should stop writing and waste the talent I have. It does mean that I should take measures to see to it that more people get the opportunities I've had. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 13 2006

Amen, bro.

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

Would I be anywhere without my talent? No. But would my talent have been enough if I were black, living in a low-income neighborhood, hadn't been homeschooled, and was surrounded by people who told me every day that I shouldn't do this writing stuff? No. Are there probably more talented writers than Tom Head living in those circumstances as we speak, who will spend the rest of their lives working menial jobs (if they're lucky), dying 10 to 20 years earlier, and generally having a much crummier time of it? Yes. And that's what privilege is about. Tom-this is an excellant example of how people have "priviledge" and never think about it. It was just YOUR life. I'd like to echo your sentiment by saying I come from a home that suffered thru six divorces between my two parents, the death of a sibling, and countless moves in my life. Someone else, without the familial support and monetary means that my family had, would not be where I was today. Thankfully I had a mother who knew how important it was to keep me in one school...a private school. I also had parents who were able to send me to college and I did not have to work. When I wanted my Master's I was able to move back home and they took care of me. THOSE are my bootstraps. People don't realize how many straps they've been given while others get none.

Lori G

Jun 13 2006

We could make many of these same arguments about beautiful people versus ugly people, or thin people versus fat people, or even (in some cases) blonde women versus non-blonde women. I am not saying this to be dismissive. Rather, I am saying this to point out that, again, the problem is not only a race problem: it is a general prejudice problem. Here in Mississippi, for example, getting your foot in the door may have more to do with your family connections than your race. I know many people who have experienced a kind of discrimination because they are too "yankee". Whether or not this changes just depends on how many people choose not to be governed by their prejudices, and how often they choose it.

GLB

Jun 13 2006

Can you guys SEE the Robitussin kickin' in that last post?? subject/verb disagreement....some misspellings....Beautiful ;)

Lori G

Jun 13 2006

I haven't taken any Robitussin. By the way, I didn't intend the "blonde women" remark to be some kind of dig at you, Ali. I didn't see your post before I submitted it. Sorry if it appered that way.

GLB

Jun 13 2006

In Mississippi more so than elsewhere, it still depends on who you know more than other considerations. I think we're coming into the age were it's not so much racism but economic elitism that's the big foe. I can't imagine what would come after the point where money truly does rule all.

Ironghost

Jun 13 2006

Of course, there are various problems with "prejudice"—but it's those forms of "prejudice" that have been institutionalized into our government, business transactions, media and everyday interactions that are the ones that present the most problems for our society. It's fine to say, "well, there are other problems, too ..." — but not if you're trying to diminish, arguably, the biggest problem we have, and have had since our forefathers built this country on the backs of free black labor. Deal with the other problems, too, but don't diminish the big one. That just won't help anything. Also, you can't simply point at poverty "instead" of race as someone suggested. The problem is that one race is saddled with poverty because of racism that caused it, and then has kept us from fixing it in a meaningful way. Careful about those either-or traps that are set to keep us divided; they won't help us fix the problems.

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

Again, Iron, it's both—class/economics and race—and they're intertwined. That's why racists have long tried to tell us, "it's about class, not race." It's a trap that won't help the understanding. Deal with both. Be concerned about class and race discrimination, intertwined and separate. Too often you see people hiding between the "class, not race" mantra and not doing anything to help on either end of it. If you really consider it, you'll see that racism has both fueled classism and kept (poor) people so divided against each other that they cannot come together to reject the dumbasses who are fueling the classism—but playing off their racism. People, meet the southern strategy in all its disgusting glory. Reminds me of my fellowship to study bad zero-tolerance policies in the schools. My findings make a lot of binary types uncomfortable: zero tolerance politics are detrimental to kids of all races—and they discriminate against kids of color. Yes, it's possible, and it's true. I sound like a broken record here, but one key to figuring out this messes is to reject binary thinking and be eager to hold more than one thought at once.

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

GLB-I was talking about MY post. I *have* had some Robitussin today. I didn't take your "blonde remark" as centered at me. I'm not naturally blonde. Although, I haven't seen my real hair color in years...so, we aren't sure what it is. But, I'm pretty sure its not blonde. ;) And, I think you make a valid point. But, I think you forget the economic aspect of everything. Yes, people are prejudice against all different kinds of people...but you neglect to factor in the many opportunities that arise in this country simply from having the monetary means to do it. You also dismiss racism as simply an individual act by individual people. This isn't necessarily true. There are entire systems that are oppressive. What I want to ask you is this...How are people supposed to genuinely attempt to not be governed by their prejudices when they've never been taught that skill? (and I'm sure this will lead to a discussion about how learning non-judgemental attitudes *is* a skill) And, if they are taught that skill, how do you suppose they uphold this while also belonging to a larger system who's oppressive functions are counterintuitive to the way they individually feel? There are so many things involved...Its just difficult.

Lori G

Jun 13 2006

Well, Ladd, you gots a "quicker" trigger finger than me! ;)

Lori G

Jun 13 2006

Agreed, Ali. I actually try not to use "racist" the same as "bigot." I believe the "ism" part indicates support of oppressive systems. That's why someone can "have a black friend," or enjoy the company of people of other races and not seem like a bigot, but still be racist in their actions and beliefs. Of course, that also gets into the idea of institutional racism.

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

Ladd: despite all this completxity, the solution is the same. If individuals choose, day by day, to not be govened by prejudice, then things will change. This is true of institutional racism as well, Ali. These changes will occur from the ground up. I don't object at all to instances of racism and other prejudice being pointed out. But too often we teach the forms of tolerance, and people just parrot these forms to avoid the racist label. So we say all the right things, and learn very little. I have known in my life many people who use language that is considered racist, but whose actions are much more genuine than mine, in terms of dealing with individuals as individuals.

GLB

Jun 13 2006

Yes, GLB, I agree with everything in your last post. But the problem is, and has been, when people refuse to face their own prejudices, or understand how their actions (or inactions) are governed by them. Or, hell, by habit—that they are not willing to understand are habits of racism. We hear people today right here in Jackson parroting the language of the White Citizens Council. Same words. But you point it out, and they start kicking and screaming and rolling on the ground, yelping that you called them a "racist." The first step, as I said, is to remove the blinders—and rationalization blinds.

DonnaLadd

Jun 13 2006

I think, ultimately, you can't remove other people's blinders. You can point things out, but they have to choose to change. And they can choose not to, if they want. Hwo do you get people to choose? I don't think you do. To me, that's analogous to conpulsory religion. It's an oxymoron. You can't force anyone to belive anything. You can force them to toe the line and behave a certain way, but you can't force them to value anything. That will just be their choice. In the meantime, I've got sins in my own soul to purge.

GLB

Jun 13 2006

That last post was a bit convoluted (and poorly spell-checked). Sorry about that. I was basically just saying that I think it boils down to individual choices, that are directed by individual value systems. Pass the robitussin.

GLB

Jun 13 2006

Specifically, the last line, about my own sins, is a non sequiter. I guess I felt guilty about spending all this time online, and felt the need to confess.

GLB

Jun 13 2006

GLB writes: I think, ultimately, you can't remove other people's blinders. You can point things out, but they have to choose to change. And they can choose not to, if they want. But by the same token, privilege isn't something that you can just spot. People don't notice it for the same reason fish don't notice water. It usually has to be pointed out to you by someone who's not submerged in the same stuff--or at least that's what it was like for me. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jun 13 2006

I think that's a subset of a general principle. If you want to learn things in life, talk to people who are different from you and listen to what they have to say. I fail to do this almost every day, but when I succeed I do manage to grow sometimes. Funny how that happens. Priviledge is a relative term. Most Americans are priviledged relative to much of the rest of the world. I am priviledged relative to someone with chronic illness. Again, I'm not being dismissive. I just don't see the specific issue of American black-white racism as an isolated thing. It is important to me to regard it in light of everything else, because I don't think it can be dealt with effectively if it is treated as a unique thing. I'm not saying YOU are claiming that it is unique. I am just keying off your statements to make my own. Anyway, enough about what I'm not saying. I sure am long-winded for a guy who doesn't say anything. Maybe I could have a career in politics!

GLB

Jun 14 2006

I have to say all the above post has opened my eyes about white people, you think you now something, but until you sit back and read, watch and find out for your own self you can only assume. i think one thing that is the basis of mankind getting along is we are all humans and God didn't instill hate in one race of people, to hate is a choice, so for me to say all white people are racist, would be generalizing, but understand this if you go through it a lot 'racism' then its easy to generalize. but i refuse to be close-minded. and i think women in general are more emotional, so i can understand what yall mean about white women being more sympathetic to towards racism, let me tell yall something i work at a hotel and when say a white couple pull up and wants valet parking and help unloading luggage, more often times than others the white husband acts as if they can't conversate or open their mouth, the white female does all the talking and the white make acts as if hes made at me or iam not on his level. i guess if i walk up to the car with my head down talking low, they will feel superior and talk to me, but when i approach their car speaking up and talking like iam on the same level i get the silent or mad treatment.

WILLman

Jun 14 2006

not all white couples though, just saying what ive observed from some white couples.

WILLman

Jun 14 2006

Don't worry about this, Willman. Keep your head up. If John H. Johnson, deceased multi-millionaire publisher of Ebony and Jet, can have car keys thrown at him and be told by so-called annointed white males to park their cars while waiting for his Rolls Royce to leave a restaurant, imagine what can happen to mere workers like us. We can never escape our skin color but you should remember it's an asset in many ways such as being able to handle the heat and not need a tan. Do what you have to do to survive. Not every white person or white man is like that. If need be, show your ass a time or two such as asking "sir, are you o.k., or have I done something to offend you", and so on. Hopefully, you work in a place where obvious racism won't be tolerated.

Ray Carter

Jun 14 2006

Hwo do you get people to choose? I don't think you do. To me, that's analogous to conpulsory religion. It's an oxymoron. You can't force anyone to belive anything. No one's talking about "forcing" anyone to do anything. We're talking about exposure to ideas, and the willingness to have a vital conversation—without someone telling you not to bother because people aren't going to change anyway, blah, blah. You've got to watch these fatalistic tendencies, GLB. We'd still be drinking out of separate water fountains if everyone back in the 1960s had believed that way.

DonnaLadd

Jun 14 2006

Ladd said: "No one's talking about "forcing" anyone to do anything. We're talking about exposure to ideas, and the willingness to have a vital conversation—without someone telling you not to bother because people aren't going to change anyway, blah, blah." "exposure" and "willingness" imply that you are dealing with someone who chooses to be exposed and who chooses that willingness. I can't argue with the fact that some compulsory changes have served to improve race relations. But the real improvement tends to happen in the second generation. For example, I went to integrated schools. The compuslory integration happened a little before my time, and by the time I was in school it wasn't an issue. Or at least it wasn't an issue for me. I just remember being fascinated that the state of Florida had named an entire city after my best friend in kindergarden ( a black boy named Orlando) and that my best friend in first grade had a name that was spelled funny (a Vietnamese kid named Ho Nyguen). So, I think integration of the schools was great for me, because it gave me some of this early exposure to different people before I learned my prejudices. But I was second generation. What of the first generation? The civil rights movement held up a mirror to us. Those who chose to see, saw, and were changed. Those who didn't were not. In todays climate, "racism" has been used by too many opportunistic people as a surrogate for rational argument. Dissent is shouted down with cries of racism, and people are unwilling to voice their concerns for fear of being labelled. As a result, the whole issue is suffering from a "Cry Wolf" syndrome. Peole mistrust anyone who mentions racism, because it has been used too often and in too many (seemingly) inappropriate circumstances. So when it is really approriate, littlle is done, and the real injustices are not addressed. Also, real dialogue, where all races and classes openly discuss their issues with one another, is difficult to come by, because of fear of labels and retribution. Essentailly, I fear a saturation of indoctrination. Sometimes less really is more. I tend to think that discussion is fantastic, but preaching to captive audiences eventally has a negative effect. Those who have ears to hear, will hear. The rest will just grow more recalcitrant. I should heed my own advice, and be more concise. Let's see if I can summarize this rambling somehow. Holding up a mirror is productive, forcing someone to gaze at it is not. Discussion is productive, indoctrination is not.

GLB

Jun 14 2006

As a person who studied civil rights, worked for EEOC in Houston, watched what Reagan and Bush did to that agency, worked in corporate America for years, and viewed independently and carefully what was claimed as racial discrimination versus what was in deed actual racial discrimination, I have concluded that much more racial discrimination occurs than ever reported or accepted and believed. Vile and racist people have learned to discriminate with great skills in order to avoid paying high recompense for it. Yes some people have claimed discrimination for convenience and fraud. Personally I believe the fake claims are miniscule compared to the real ones. I represented a black female once who worked for some crazy bigots in Kosciusko. She complained for years about abuse and physical violence based on race but everyone ignored her. Finally she figured out how to secretly wear a tape which allowed her to get the boss calling her all kinds of dumb, stupid, and worthless black b1tch@s and niggers. The attorney for the company asked me how much we wanted after hearing one of those tapes. He then told the owners they were the craziest people he had ever met, and they would soon be out of business if they didn't grow up soon. Additionally, when I moved back to the Jackson area in 1995 I tried to get an apartment temporarily near the down area. I was told there were no vacancies. I had a relative whose voice is color-indistinguishable to call after me and learned there were lots of vacancies. I later learned the same tactic has been used against tens of blacks including many lawyers (some very rich and hailing from other cities). We would have broke the bank with that company except the justice department sued in our stead. That company needlessly paid a large chunk of money for its grave stupidity.

Ray Carter

Jun 14 2006

GLB, I have no idea what you're talking about. No one is talking about forcing, and I'm repeating myself. You sound like you're trying to be contrarian to be contrarian, and that never interests me. Please read what I write before responding to me repeatedly with a misrepresentation of what I wrote. That gets tedious. You're debating yourself here, I think.

DonnaLadd

Jun 14 2006

Ray, that sounds like a list of people who have learned to parrot the right things to the right people to avoid trouuble, but who have not chosen to really change. The law should indeed provide protection from them when their choice ends up infringing on your rights, but ultimately they will be who they want to be. We can't even say that being racist will end up being bad for them, because in many cases it isn't. There are plenty of very happy racists in the world. We can only hope that they will decide that they'd like to learn a little something from people who are different from themselves, to get to know them. But if they don't choose this, then they just don't. So what is the remedy? I apologize for spiraling into so may different areas in my previous post. I should have stuck to what I know (or at least I think I know). The problems and complexities of this issue are innumerable. But the solution is always the same. Each time one of us chooses not to react reflexively to our prejudices, each time we give someone the benefit of the doubt, each time we extend to people the simple dignity of allowing them to define themselves as individuals, we contribute to the solution. Each time we don't, we contribute to the problem. It is not easy, by any means. But it is that simple.

GLB

Jun 14 2006

It's actually not that simple. I wish it was. That's a good start, but it is also vital to do more than simply change interpersonal relationships. Much more.

DonnaLadd

Jun 14 2006

Yeah, sorry Ladd. I went into orbit for a bit there. I had a point, but I can't really articulate it. I suppose it's just s feeling, so I have no business trying to articulate a feeling. Sorry about that.

GLB

Jun 14 2006

That's OK. ;-) Keep talking, though. This topic is supposed to be easy, but it is worthwhile.

DonnaLadd

Jun 14 2006

I do disagree with your last statement though. I think it is that simple. Maybe it's better to say that it all boils down to that. At least that's what I think.

GLB

Jun 14 2006

I like your writing style, GLB.

Ray Carter

Jun 14 2006

No problem on disagreeing. ;-) My problem with that idea, though, is the multitude of people who have great interpersonal relationships with people with other races, while (purposefully or through ignorance) supporting policies designed to hurt people of other races. This is where the institutional racism, or just "racism" the way I define it, comes in. And these days, I too often see people using their improved interpersonal relationships as an excuse (or cover) for the truly insidious racism they participate in. In fact, that even happened back during Jim Crow and slavery, but was even less convincing then. Or should have been.

DonnaLadd

Jun 14 2006

Thanks Ray. I really do appreciate that. Ladd, I think the solution to those problems is still founded on interpersonal relationships. Founded, not resolved. The resolution is done on a policy by policy basis. I'm not sure you and I disagree all that much. Maybe I am less certain than you are about which policies are indeed racist. But that's a policy by policy discussion too. I think this discussion betwen you and I is really just a difference in pholisophy about how to effect change in the world. I tend to think that all political and social solutions are band-aids, and all real, substantive change is the result of individual choices. So that's my paradigm, and maybe my filter too. So tell me, what color glasses do I see the world through? {:)

GLB

Jun 14 2006

I think you're right. We probably are close together, and I don't think you're one of the folks I'm referring to—who say, "I get along great with _______ people, so what's the problem?" That excuse has to be called out for an excuse, but of course interpersonal relationships are very important. Anyone who knows me knows I believe that. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jun 14 2006

That's cool, Ladd. But who are underline people? Just kidding.

GLB

Jun 15 2006

My grandfather still uses the n-word when fondly talking about african-american people he once knew. Last time i was over there he was talking about a friend of my moms in high school and even said he thought she was the "prettiest of the bunch." When he uses the n-word my grandmother has been trained by me and my mom to correct him...mainly because she knows we will start a long conversation about the subject. The truth is that my grandfather is one of the most inspiring people to me. He pays attention to anyone who talks and doesn't down their viewpoint...if he has an opposing viewpoint he will tell a story about how he came to have that viewpoint. He unfortunately is a part of racism. (as am i) He has been cultured in times of miss-thinking about blacks in general. From thinking they are somehow intrinsically inferior to whites in intelligence, integrity, and moral fortitude to automatically blaming social ills on non-related trends in black culture; he cannot shake instilled assumptions because he has never had the thought that he his thinking might be based on just that...assumptions. i amm constantly questioning my thinking and it makes me very aware of some of the automatic responses instilled in my psyche. When i see a black man walking down the street in a wife beater my brain pulls up thoughts that he might be homeless or a "thug". Being immerseed in a culture that has demonized the black male my enntire life has made it a fearful thing to take a walk through west jackson. I don't think i am a bigot because i can consciously choose to skip past some of my first impulses and choose a different reality. I am a part of racism though because my brain is wired with the concepts of racism. The only thing i know to do is 1) recognize that i have been systematically conditioned to think a certain way about black people by media and our educational system. 2) actively question every assumption i have. 3) seize every opportunity to immerse myself in situations that might cause me discomfort so that i might experience the healing quality of realizing a different outcome than i previously expect. I now ride my bike to my friends house over by Mill St. I go to Freelons when there is an event that i am interested in. I enjoy attending hip hop and poetry readings when i can get out because i have gradually learned through experience that my expectations were false. I have never felt superior to a black person. I have however been quick to make assumptions about an individual black persons character and had to catch myself so that i provided a clean slate for every individual i meet. it is hard to try to phrase these types of admissions without fearing how they will be taking...but i have to be willing to try to so that others can interface with that and help me to define myself through conversation.

daniel johnson

Jun 16 2006

Daniel, thanks for your comments. They are from the heart, and that shines through. Everytime someone tries like this to talk about these issues, a little chunk of division is chipped away. Or, at least so I believe strongly.

DonnaLadd

Jun 17 2006

I hate to say this, but I'm afraid that castigating people for any kind of difference, no matter how petty, seems part of human nature. It goes all the way back to Kindergarten and continues from there If everybody is of the same religion, then it's liable to be about race. If everyone is of the same religion AND the same race, then it's about class. If all are of the same religion, race, and class, then it's gonna be about your personal eccentricities. If all are of the same religion, race, class, and normally-behaved, then it's gonna be about your gender... and so on and so forth. Humans have an amazing capacity to work themselves into a hissy fit about trivial traits. Me? I think a very enlightening afternoon would be a deep meaningful conversation with someone walking around in public with a rubber chicken in their mouth. No telling what new insights into the human condition you can gain from a conversation with them (This is not satire; I'm being serious. Weirdos tend to be the source of many new ideas that change society for the better)

Philip

Jun 17 2006

Is it human nature or is it a pattern of behavior we have been historically immersed in? No doubt we recognize differences in each other...these differences are definitely the tools we use to grow together as a people toward a deeper understanding of human experience. I have heard too many adults make disparaging comments about others based on arbitratry differences in front of small children to assume that our young are dividers by nature rather than nurture. I don't think that a culture embodying love and acceptance with a keen focus on unity in difference would face an uphill struggle in keeping their children from being racist, sexist, classist, holy rollers.

daniel johnson

Jun 18 2006