Whites Understand the Advantages of Being White (link)
While many White Americans recognize that they enjoy certain privileges over other races, nearly half of them believe governmental institutions are color-blind and don’t contribute to those privileges, according to a new “Whiteness” survey released by researchers at the University of Minnesota. “The assumption has been that Whites didn’t see or understand the privileges they might have that go along with race,” said Doug Hartmann, an associate professor of sociology at the university and the study’s co-author. “And there we have pretty high numbers.
Sixty percent or upwards of Whites see the way that prejudice and discrimination and family upbringing and access to schools creates advantages for them. That’s surprising to a lot of left-leaning type scholars who assume that Whites didn’t get that,” he said.Although more Whites are starting to understand the advantages of being White in America as a group, they are less aware of it than other racial groups, the study said. The study reported that 46 percent of Whites “agreed that laws and institutions play an important role in explaining why Whites are better off than other racial groups.” Hartmann said, “Whites recognize White privileges in a lot of individualistic domains but they still think that American laws and institutions are fair and treat everyone equally.” The researchers did a telephone survey of more than 2,000 homes nationwide. Of the participants, 1,000 were White, while the remaining participants were a combination of Blacks, Hispanics and other racial groups.
...this study is the beginning of a good dialogue among the races, and “part” of him is excited that White people “are beginning to show an indication that their awareness and knowledge around these issues are improving.” But he is also disheartened that many “don’t see the connection to the systemic, institutional design.”Moore, an African-American, said it is not enough for White people to just recognize their advantages, but to take it another step further and take action to equal the playing field for all Americans. “I want to give you some praise for getting to that point,” he said. “But for me that is not enough.”
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
White Privilege.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment
35 comments:
Good article. I was conversating over email with a friend about this issue last week, and we were specifically dialoguing about if there was a 'positive' white identity....here are his comments:
"I would like you to consider the following:
One must first start with an acceptable operational definition of "White" (which is a similar dilemma when one attempts to define "Black")....
There must be a distinction made between the word "white", as use by the popular culture as it has evolved in our everyday cultural vocabulary and the use of the word as it seeks to define a particular ethnic, cultural or historical human phenotype.
As for the former, it has taken on a subjective meaning (subjective to the user and the audience) with an overall negative perception of its meaning. This negative
perception is due primarily to the use of the word through history by prejudicial and self-serving individuals. Therefore under this use of the word there could not
be a positive "white identity". This is because some "whites" would view the identity with a racial guilt based on historical wrongs against other ethnic groups.
While other "whites" would view the identity with a sense of misguided racial pride based on an exaggerated sense self importance and racial insecurity; while on the other hand, other ethnic or cultural groups outside this identify would have an adverse reaction to this perceived negative use of "white identity" Once again, there could not be a positive use of "white identity" from any objective standard under this use of the word.
As for the latter use, it could take on a more precise definition of a particular ethnic and cultural group that has a qualitative history in human kind. Base on this cultural and ethnic history, this group could take pride and celebration in its history just as any other ethnic or cultural group. One may consider this ethnic, cultural group a positive "white identity" (although I think the word "white " would not be a wise use of the word in defining ones identity, because of the aforementioned reasons under the previous paragraph)."
"What we need in this country [America] is a white history [month ]not black history [month] ..so white folk can find out who and what they are......" James Baldwin
where's that powerpoint?! we gotta figure out what the hell "whiteness" even is.
but of course we know that the power lies in its mystic and ambiguity... sort of like the American dream i guess. this grand thing that has never really been positively (or pro-actively) defined.
so dissapointed in your friends answer. sounds like some mumbojumbo. after all that he/she still didn't get around to defining postive white identity.
that baldwin quote is off the chain. harold cruse was on that too... when whiteness is defined it will loose it's power. blackness only means something in reaction to whiteness.
but start to dismantle those two words and this whole damn thing might start to crumble.
and blacks have put so much reactionary positive identity into their word that i don't know if we'd be willing to let it go in favor of a more defined ethnic group.
although what is becoming one of my favorite quotes applies here as well.
"the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names"
I don't think you really read closely what he was saying to say its mumbojumbo. An important distinction to make, between phenotype and culture. There is a difference, wouldn't you say, between 'looking white' and 'acting white'? The definition of white changes slightly. Which is to say it has different connotations in different envirornments, just like blackness.
Seems like a pretty basic truth to me.
From that understanding a conversation has to be had among European descended peoples on so many levels about collective responsibility/identity...like what values we want to associate ourselves with in the future?
Myself, I am through giving so much energy to defining what 'whiteness' is, and trying more to just recognize basic values by which any culture/group of people should live by.
In the popular culture, though, I would venture to say 'whiteness' has a kind of negative identity associated with 'gumpishness', sneakiness, and general lack of smoothness and style.
i call it mumbojumbo i guess because it just doesn't really seem to address the bigger issue at hand, which is what i'm more interested.
to deconstruct white privilege i think REQUIRES whites to be forced to identify themselves.
i think what is scary about doing that and why so many white people avoid it is that in doing so i think the odds are huge that one would come to realize how connected "whiteness" is with imperialism and colonization...
especially of America.
thus most whites choose to identify themselves as "Americans" as far as an identity that allows them to find some kind of pride...
but even that hides something shameful... the truth that this land is not theirs, rightfully.
so whites are hard pressed to find a positive identity of which to be proud of unless they retreat to their European ethnic group identities. and even there there it is difficult.
what history do "whites" have?
there is no collective "white history" is there?
so how can this group take pride in its history?
whiteness as we know it in America seems to gain any significant meaning through the creation of America, using the atlantic slave trade.
whites became white mainly because they wanted to find a way to differentiate themselves from the rest of african-originated humanity (of which they too are apart of if they are willing to admit it)
the identity, power and meaningfulness of whiteness is precisely in its ambiguity. essentially it's everything that "they" are not. thus everyone else is automatically placed in an inferior position.
the traits you suggest are just black people trying to do that same thing in order to give themselves a sense of power... we make fun of the way white boys walk and talk, etc.. but just because we want to make them feel like we are something that they a
re not. but of course that's just reactionary mumbojumbo too and insignificant for the most part. there's no power behind it. and there surely isn't a legacy of imperialism and colonialism behind it.
and i think that trying to recognize basic values that people should live by is a great thing for any human to do.
but at the same time there is a responsibility on "conscious" white people's shoulders to deconstruct "whiteness" because they constructed it and it is a destructive force in the world.
if your grandpa created Frankenstein and now he's on the loose killing everyone except you, you have a responsibility to kill the monster.
white people can't walk away from this. they must help make things right and make the world whole again by killing this identity that is built on ego and superiority complexes and humbling it and helping the people who subscribe to it abandon it and adopt more human identities.
when i try and put myself in white shoes, i just can't imagine me being white and walking away from the reparations issues for blacks and indians in this country.
i couldn't imagine myself just being okay with searching out basic good human principles and avoiding taking action on helping to right the wrongs that i continue to primarily benefit from...
which is an aspect of white privilege that most articles don't cover... there's a psychological privilege of bring white.
if you are white in America you are forever associated with the conquerer. the people who beat up on everyone else and took this land and made it into what it was today.
while african and indigenous descendants everyday are associated with the people who lost. we lost the land that we were supposed to care for, or we lost our homeland and are forced to get on the never ending treadmill of assimilation to whiteness.
so i don't think this is an issue of whites getting together and deciding more positive principles to live by.
it's a matter of getting rid of an identity that separates them from humanity by definition.
my grandpa's tribe in uganda from where i get my last name, the batoro, are prideful people in our current ethic group. we are proud of our more modern history. but we also have a reverence for the original people on earth and we understand that we are connected to them, even if we don't have the exact science to show the direct connection.
i think something similar might work for Europeans. all it would take is a collective humility. come back to the human family as far as where they find the origin of their identity... and say sorry. and put some action behind that. it doesn't have to be called white guilt. or self hate. it's white deconstruction. and it takes white courage.
I see what you are saying, and agree completely.
But I'm struck by the gap between the ideal goal, which is the deconstruction of whiteness, and the actual mental and social outlook of the majority of 'so-called white people' LOL.
The distinction my friend brought up is important to what you say 'SCWP' should strive towards, because in their defensiveness a call to 'betray' or 'deconstruct' whiteness is interpreted as a call to self-hatred and self-genocide, mainly because of the emotional attachment to that word. Even when you use the word white, you simultaneously define a phenotype and a cultural outlook, but if the 'deconstruction of whiteness' is to occur voluntarily, it will have to be through the seperation of these two identifications. In the near future, no one is going to stop using the word 'white', so lets put our efforts into giving it less power...through collective action, towards reparations, the criminal (in)justice system, liberatory education, etc.
I like the idea of striving towards collective humility, although it is interesting that you used the word 'retreat' to describe identifying themselves as European ethnics; I would describe it more as a rediscovery or reintegration...just as you wouldn't describe a black person as 'retreating' to their African identity...it is something that has been lost and needs to be recovered...the identity of this nation-state we call America is built on genocide and forced labor...thus to be 'American' is problematic.
I think what also is key to 'killing the Frankenstein monster' is to recognize there were those who went against the grain, who struck blows against this monster, even though they stood to benefit from it. Finding and identifying those individuals is a step to creating a positive identity for SCWP.
Then emulating them through action is the next step....positive identity is created through common struggle. Deconstruct the value system based on hierarchy and separeation, and who knows, the word might still remain, and words are just words in the end. It is the association behind them that gives them power. (As you point out).
SCWP!
love it.
i think you might have just coined a new revolutionary term.
to take the first point you made though that defended your friends distinction of the two different meanings of whiteness... i still can't see where that's necessary.
because if "white" is a SOCIAL construct, then there is not a phenotypical characteristic. Phenotypically, SCWP are, Caucasians, Europeans, etc.
And in a positive-social/cultural sense, they are Germanic, eastern European, Mediterranean, British... you get what i'm saying? i don't know enough specific euro-cultures to really be accurate here, but you get the point hopefully.
and i agree that there is an "ideal" and the "real".
SCWP are not likely to abandon the word anytime soon. but first i just wanted to get the ideal clear. then move towards the more realistic actions for the common SCWP.
and "retreat" was probably not the best word to use. i too prefer "rediscovery".
plus it makes it more likely that people will be willing to do it.
and finding those individuals who have really understood the "ideal" is very important i agree.
and emulating them is important as well. which supports what i just said above about the discovery of an ideal being a necessary first step and then the emulation of that ideal (which is bound to manifest itself in a more "realistic" way) is the next step.
..although at the same time ironically enough we have to admit that things don't always happen in steps. but for the sake of clarity in communication we'll go ahead and describe them as "steps" and "prioritize" them.
and lastly, in the more "realistic" sense... as you say... when it comes to actually trying to get SCWP to move away from their SCWhitness (lol. this is hilarious)... i think it would most likely be in a way that does minimize the actual word instead of putting some kind of ban on the word.
I envision that happening by people being encouraged to "rediscover" their more-positive ethnic identities. and further, re-discovering the historical connection with africa.
hopefully eventually that leads to a greater desire to use those ethnic categories.
but i remain skeptical, only because "american" provides a huge sense of pride and feeds the ego of so many SCWP that i find it unlikely that they'll ever "retreat to" alternatives that don't afford them as much pride and power.
which come to think of it is why i guess i used retreat... cause SCWP would be retreating to something that they perceive as "less powerful" and dominant. it would be a retreat for the sake of peace. which is a hard thing for an army that has the advantage to do. why the hell would anyone do that?
but in the larger more truthful picture it is a "rediscovery" the question is will an army that has the tactical advantage be able to separate itself from the excitement of being on the verge of victory and power long enough to realize that what it might now see only as a "retreat" is actually the more positive action of "rediscovery" for the sake of re-establishing peace.
that leaves a heavy job for those SCWP who have the calling to be the soldier who is trying to convince the army to end the war when it has the advantage and could easily continue its dominating march to "victory."
its kinda like those superman episodes where superman gets turned evil from some mind control device and there's really no reason for him to stop taking over the world, afterall there's no one who could stop him. but it ends up being lois lane or his mom who has the ability to talk him out of it, not for his own sake or his own incentive (there is no real incentive for him to stop) but for the sake of everyone else.
in the cartoons it works, because good has this magical appeal that makes superman's eyes turn clear again and its just so damn touching that he has to listen, but in the real world it doesn't seem to be that easy all the time.
Right, thats where I see Saul Alinsky's piece about the meaning of revolution as being so important...the struggle to convince others, unfruitful or unproductive as we may deem it to be in our lifetime, is nevertheless the only source of hope.
The reality is that those soldiers who tried to convince the army to quit fighting are usually hanged/killed/assasinated as traitors, like Jesus, the most famous victim of the death penalty.
The fact that there is no 'happy ending' can be scary, but its also a relief, because there is no 'ending' at all, life goes on.
Iim skeptical but also hopeful because I feel like in 2007 there are people (even SCWPs!) trying to find their way out of this 500 plus year aberration in human thought consciousness, initiated by EuroAmerican imperialism.
SCWP are the most resistant to change, for obvious reasons that you mentioned.
But the survival of the human species demands that we change our behavior, and rid ourselves of that separation from the rest of humanity.
I see a logical connection between the anti-racism/anti-white supremacy movement, and the envirornmental movement in that respect, because the values of white supremacy are the same values of envirornmental supremacy, the same values that are leading the world towards a massive and disastrous climactic shift. Shedding the values of white supremacy and Western philosophy which underly our current system is one step towards ensuring the survival of the planet...Jerry Mander has a good book on this called The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations.
What about America? Demographic indicators point to the likelihood hat America will not be a majority white country in a matter of years...maybe even as short as a decade. With SCWPs no longer in numerical dominance, can America remake itself as a more open nation with true polycultural representation? Or will Latinos (as the likely numerical majority) be co-opted by the right into acting as a 'buffer' class with a minority of SCWPs holding economic power? (like the situation in South Africa) What will this demographic change mean for black people in America?
(Maybe thats another topic entirely)
Highly recommend this wonderful site:
Teirra y Vida: For America To Live, Europe Must Die.
I think you guys had an interesting and good discussion. I think that the term you guys used "whiteness" seems interchangable with white identity. And the idea of deconstructing whiteness doesnt really make since because it is and identity just as much as blackness is an identity. Whether or not whiteness as an identity is flawed is another question. An identity connected to an ethnic group is never a bad thing but I think the question you guys were addressing is the white identity that in some eyes is connected to superiority. Its that superiority complex that needs to be deconstructed, not white identity.
I think what needs to be deconstructed and challenged is White Privilege. White privilege isnt just about being able to walk into a store and not be suspected of stealing, or not having to fear for your life when a cop pulls you over. White privilege is also about the way we speak (white=normal,regular,the default, the comparison), the way we look at the world (white accomplishments are looked at something that everyone should aspire to), the way we analyze knowledge (western philosophy, and all the values that accompany it, is considered the pinnacle of genius and human endevor).
One of the most striking things I remember from reading about white privilege was when an author made a point about the way we speak. When people are speaking about a person, if they are white they ususally will not designate the persons race. If they are speaking about someone who is not white they will always designate their race (that black guy, my indain friend). White is considered the defalt/normal so in turn its not important to designate what race they are. Thats just one example of the way we speak.
White privilege is displayed constantly in the way all people in this country live their lives. The first step is addressing these patterns when you hear of see them.
Just saying to an unconscious white person "hey why was it important to designate this persons race and not that persons race in what you just said?". I think it goes a long way towards starting a discussion.
Nate,
have you read Jerry Manders "Four arguments for the elimination of television" That book is off the hook! I didnt know he had written other books, I'll look for that one.
I think when white people are really starting to become the minority in this country they will lose their minds! I think they will inact something similar to an apartheid regime or they will succeed from the union before they lose power, and create their own country. In the apartheid scenario, I think they will try to put the latinos in a middle of the road position much like Indians in S.Africa. With Blacks at the bottom. What will this mean for Black people? Unfortunately not very much will change as far as the position of Black people.
If people of color unite then thats a different story, but I dont see that happening.
Thanks J9, you made my point, only made it better. (Btw, I'm familiar with his Television book, but I've never seen a copy for sale in my frequent trips to the used bookshops)
So....for the sake of maybe sparking some more interesting conversation....
The attitude itself (which we call 'white') got to be removed....that privilege.
The responses to my use of the word 'white' as an ethnic or cultural marker and in other forums is so negative that it only makes the point my friend was making more salient: that negative perception has surrounded that word so much that its impossible to have a positive white identity.
Brian,
It depends on how you define white as to whether there is white history. So far I havn't seen a specific definition....would you define the ancient Greeks, for example, as white? Do you equate white and Western? Either way, SCWP have a history, even a history they can be proud of.
But the problem is that they don't know how to face up to the really terrible parts honestly, and they turn a few minor moments of inspiration into the pinnacle of world achievement...thats where the issue should be (on an honest assessment by SCWP of their history, not in debating whether or not SCWPs have a history.
As far as the land not belonging to whites...it doesn't really 'belong' to blacks either, so I don't see how that applies. Again looking at it from a realistic perspective: should whites and blacks leave America because the land is not theirs?
As far as a genuine apology, it would be admirable and courageous, but I don't see it as realistic...what in reality is a poor white in West Virginia getting his ass kicked working in the mine supposed to say sorry for? Who should he own up to about his 'whiteness' and white privilege? The reason I think we should stop giving energy to the word white and whiteness is because its gotten way too theoretical, and at the same time very vague and undefined, as your post shows.
My point is, unless you are very precise at identifying who you mean by whites, then your attempts to define responsibility for slavery and stolen land will be ineffective.
With your Frankenstein analogy, it holds up to a very limited point. Its more like your adopted great great grandfather created this monster, and now because you have the family name, you are responsible for killing the monster...
thats absurd, as you had nothing to do with creating it. I think its a positive act to join in fighting the monster, and as a person fighting for justice I feel a responsibility to myself to fight it, but I don't see where it becomes a moral responsibility simply because I'm white.
SCWP (the preferred term for the time being) are one of the world's problems, but the overarching problem is a value system that turns people into objects, and places material gain ahead of spiritual knowledge. The issue of humbling oneself is a universal issue, not specific to whites (although much needed among that group, no doubt!!)
The word white, much like the word 'nigger' has acquired an emotional attachment, far beyond its actual power in the current world. IMHO, the critique has to get more sophisticated.
to be clear, i'm saying "white" cannot be separated into some "non-superiority" thing and a white that is connected with privilege and superiority.
whiteness came into existence as a tool that was used to identify superiority or to separate those people who created white identity from everyone else in the human family.
like i said, whiteness has no solid definition because it gets its power in its resistance of definition -- in its ambiguity. like the American dream. it is pretty much undefinable but that's the point! that's what keeps people chasing it, because people make it what they want to. it doesn't really matter. what matters is that it is "GREAT"... better than what you are or had before.
greek is greek. there is a definable culture there. greek food. greek language, etc.
there is no white food, or white language. there is no "white history"... there is greek history, irish history, british history, even European history. but it's important that whiteness be outed for what it is -- essentially, nothing.
i think harold cruse was saying that when you force white people to identify with their ethnic groups -- through the census -- first of all it makes it so "majority" status in America would be shifted immediately... "white" is a majority now. but irish-americans, italian-americans, jewish-americans, nordic (swedish, polish, norway, germanic-americans), etc... if identified properly would probably make latino people the majority TODAY, with slave descended african-americans not far behind. the regular west virginian "white" guy looses all his buddies and therefore his power.
groups with light enough skin have historically assimilated into "whiteness" because by definition it is a position of privilege and power. because that is all "white" was created for... "white" was not created (as other cultures) out of the need for a language, or a diet, or an art or music tradition. it was a political creation.
on a side note, i think it's equally important that black people work towards that next phase in identifying themselves. "black" is a reactionary definition of self. it was given power from james brown and the 60s and 70s but it is a romantic power, not a timeless one. "black power" depends entirely on whiteness for its existence and validity.
the land issue... i'm simply saying that in retreating from whiteness to call yourself an American you retreat to another definition that gains its power from shady foundations. "american" was created from the oppression by "european settlers" of the american native peoples.
like i said, black american is not an ideal identity, but it is merely a reaction to white. i'm not saying it's right, but it certainly isn't the fundamental question that needs to be addressed. it's not the card that you pull to bring down the house. just like locking up drug addicts and dealers isn't the card to bring down the house.
black people need to acknowledge that this land is not theirs too. but historically they have had a decent relationship with the native peoples of this land, when not under the authority of white people (i.e. buffalo soldiers).
of course whites and blacks should not leave America if they do not want to! but they ought to be apart of re-creating the natural order on this continent. whites were always welcomed by the natives. its not a matter of "go back where you came from" its a matter of, you can stay, just respect the natural laws of this place. and today i think it is still a matter of, you can stay just respect the natural laws of this place.
i don't care if apology is seen as realistic, it is right. and hopefully that west virginia miner realizes that. i know there are white farmers and poor folks in northern minnesota who have a very healthy relationship with the land and a high respect and humility for it. and they are on a path towards reconciliation. not all poor white people are stubborn. in fact most are not, when not being manipulated by someone. i think many poor whites would be relieved if presented with an opportunity to reconcile with the land and the native people of this land who best know the ways of this land. get them out of the cities for a few years, it is highly probably in my opinion.
in fact, from my experience the arrogance often directly relates to how much one has assimilated not just their occupation and economic class (i.e. poor virigia miner)...
some of those same poor white folks i've met in northern minnesota are more humble than some black folks i know who have bought into the american way.
also, apology need not always come in words. actions sometimes seek louder. humility speaks volumes.
and i don't think that attempts to define responsibility towards slavery has much to do with whiteness. i'm not too keen on the reparations movement in its current form. but i think that no one is asking reparations from a culture group. people are asking reparations from businesses and governments, which does not require a definition of whiteness.
accurately identifying ones roots serves that individual more than anyone else.
as in the Frankenstein analogy, a monster is created as well a family name to represent this monster... and it does damage to this land under this family name...
regardless of if it was a creation of your great great grandpa or not, yes, we are all responsible for killing it.
i am merely saying, certainly if anyone is not to run from this responsibility it ought not be the great great grandson.
and it is certainly an insult to those who have died to proudly proclaim the family name of Frankenstein. more so, it is a poison pill to the family and generations you create to continue to seek identity and pride from that family name when you know the name was a fabrication all along. that name has no roots but in that the name was created to give a title to this thing that we now know was destructive. find a new family name! especially if you know your old family name, why continue to cling to this one?
ok, that makes it clearer. You make my point though about the subjective response to the word white by describing it as a poison pill....I'm not claiming there's no history and culture behind it, I'm just saying lets let go of the word and seek identitys for European descended people that identify us ethnically, phenotypically, culturally, and politically in a liberatory fashion. There is no satisfactory term, yet....I'm not really Irish, though my ancestors are from Ireland. I don't speak the language (YET!) and I am not a meaningful part of that culture.
I'm not sure the identity of Latino is much more well-defined than white. I mean, you have indigenous, Spanish, black, 'white'...what is a Latino?
Technically there is white culture, white food, white history, and all of that...the political definition has a cultural component. White history is the history of Anglo-Saxon, Germanic people in America (the original 'whites' and the driving force behind white genetic survival)
I'm willing to classify 'mayonaisse and cauliflower as white foods. LOL.
White culture is 'American' culture...the culture of acquisitive materialism and dynamic individualism.
Is there a black language?
What would happen if these young white kids stopped identifying as white?
The privilege associated with the skin color would still be there, but a refusal to identify with that part of oneself would have interesting implications for the future.
I think as a white person I have to acknowledge that I benefit from the arbitrary political definition of whiteness, participate in the history of SCWP, and at the same time work and struggle towards a higher conscious connection with all of humanity...the relationship with the land piece is CRUCIAL to the future of SCWP in America.
Nate,
Very interesting topic your friend brought up. Its difficult and complicated to understand, and I'm an outsider looking in (to white identity).
I think first we have to understand that "white" is exclusively a product of the American psyche. To the best of my knowledge the term white as an identity didnt exist until Europeans fled Europe to come to America. The original British colonists still considered themselves British for a long time. I think white as an identity (being a conglomoration of all different European ethnic groups) came into being when Europeans started interacting with other races in this country and needed to differentiate themselves. I think it was somewhat of a reactionary move, I think out of fear of the other.
With the repression and genocide of Native Americans, along with the Atlantic Slave Trade bringing Aficans to this continent, Europeans were the minority in the 13 colonies for a while, it made since to engulf all these different European ethnic groups into one "white" identity because there is strength in numbers. It made since because even thought they were from different countries in Europe they still shared a common moral and religious way of life, so they did have a certian amount of culture in common.
I feel like Black identity as a kind of vague all encompassing "African Diasporic" Identity makes since for Black people on this side of the world because we dont have specific countries in Africa to identify with. Now with genetic testing that is changing which is really exciting.
this is probably jumbled and difficult to read. forgive im in a hurry write more later
oh and forgive spelling and typos
if we are to create a new america, we cannot be okay with the fact that white culture is american cultre.
if american culture is to be redefined, i would think that whiteness has to be eliminated as a source of identity.
IF so called white kids can start to disassociate themselves, by way of their cultural associations with ethnic groups, or maybe accepting a period in their history of "being lost" (a sort of dark ages in identity) and by way of changes in the census, the skin color privilege would start to decline i think.
the more jews there are, the more irish, italians, the more germans, the more nordic, swedish, icelandic, belgian, greek, portugeese, spanish, swiss, finish, turkish, austrian, french, british, russian, polish, etc... the less "white" people there are... which can be the start of something good.
anyone seen "gangs of new york?" where the second generation "americans" start calling themselves "natives" and fighting against the first generation immigrants because they are "invaders"...
isnt the first step to humility to stop seeking pride in the current white american culture?
Nate,
to answer you question of Whether or not there can be a positive white identity?
I am inclinded to say yes of course. In all honesty I think white kids are coddled into a positive understanding of their history all throughout life. My best example would be high school where the only history we learned/glorified was European history. The only philosophy we learned was western philosophy. According to history books and my teachers, other cultures had nothing to add to modern history, religion, philosophy, science. So for me to hear that white people dont have a positive white identity is sort of laughable, considering the fact that I spent my entire formative years trying to fight to find a way to cultivate a positive black identity in a society inundated with white knowledge, beauty standards, values and history.
I think your friend is referring to more of a white guilt in being unable to feel positive about being white. History is history, you have to deal with it. The truth is that white folks have done a lot of shitty things to every other race and I really dont have time for white kids who are complaining about people bringing it up because it makes them feel guilty. they should feel guilty because at the end of the day they still benefit from the crimes committed.
ok one last thing.
I would have to strongly disagree with the statement that "white culture is American culture"
I think white people have spent so much time appropriating/copying Black culture and claiming these things as their own, that I am hard pressed to find one cultural identifier that is exclusively "white" in this country. Just my observation
Brian,
"if american culture is to be redefined, i would think that whiteness has to be eliminated as a source of identity"
I really dont think white identity is the source of the problem unless it is connected to a superiority complex. White people are never going to stop identifying as a group. I also dont expect Asians, Africans, Arabs, or Latin Americans to stop identifying as groups. I think white privilege is what has to end. White identity is just incidental. It means nothing. I see no hinderance in white people identifying as one huge group of Europeans vs. identifying with their ethnic groups. I dont see it as any difference in the way Japanese might identify as Asian OR identify as Japanese, or the way Ethiopians might identify as Africans OR as Ethiopians. White Identity isnt the crucial problem. White privilege is the program that the world has been forced to live by, shutting off that program is the most crucial step.
Right. a more accurate statement is: white culture is one of many American culture(s), consisting of a lot of borrowed elements from African, and other cultures.
I pretty much co sign on all your last statements.
j9, you're missing the point when you say there can be a positive white identity.
what we need to understand is that what is seen as "positive" is in fact negative.
so when i ask is there a positive white identity, i'm not asking if there are so-called good things that whiteness has been associated with. because those things that you used as examples are subjective. they glorify white identity, but in truth they do not add to the possibility of a positive white identity.
in fact the manipulation of history especially in school that you bring up, contributes more to the existence of a negative white identity that manipulates history and education to its own benefit. within the bubble, yeah it's positive. but in fact it is negative because its manipulation.
white guilt comes from the realization that so many "positive" things about white identity are manipulations and distortions of the truth. or unjust, unearned or stolen treasures.
by saying white culture is american culture i'm merely pointing out what i think we can agree on, that "whiteness" is the default in america.
if america is to start to belong to everyone (or perhaps it belonging to "no one" would be ideal) then whiteness must be made to not be the default when one speaks of America or American culture.
you are continuing to miss my point when you say:
"brian... I really dont think white identity is the source of the problem unless it is connected to a superiority complex. White people are never going to stop identifying as a group. I also dont expect Asians, Africans, Arabs, or Latin Americans to stop identifying as groups. I think white privilege is what has to end. White identity is just incidental. It means nothing."
the point is that white identity was created as a symbol for a superiority complex. so how are you going to get rid of the superiority complex without also getting rid of the symbol?
can you get rid of the idea of a white jesus without also taking down the pictures of a white jesus from your home or from our church? and even if you know the truth but continue to leave the picture hanging, you are leaving room or your kids to learn the lie anew.
because the white superiority complex is tied into history, i don't think you're going to be able to fight it without fighting the symbol that was created to propagate the superiority complex and make it more powerful.
if you have a platform for getting rid of a white superiority complex without getting rid of "whiteness" with all its historical relations, origins, and connotations, then please let me know. until then, i say one won't go until they both go. otherwise your just cutting the flowers off of dandelions instead of pulling weeds.
Meanings and connotations change all the time...whiteness has the potential like any other word to change its usage and meaning...to extricate itself from that which it symbolizes in history and in your own mind. I agree that would be quite difficult with certain words, such as 'whiteness'.
My point is, I don't feel like its worth my energy trying to 'create' a positive meaning for the word itself.
Irrespective of that, I don't see a problem identifying with my people as a larger group-- but I think a better word has to be found. EuroAmerican seems like a decently descriptive word to use. Then, that would be broken down into Irish, Lithuanian, etc
For the purposes of actually convincing white people to change their behavior though, its counterproductive to say 'you gotta get rid of your whiteness'.
I agree with the part about America belonging to 'no one'. Its healthier if there is an official recognition that there is not one but many American cultures.
brian,
We keep going back and forth about this same point: my opinion is that white identity/whiteness is not ALWAYS connected to a superiority complex in the individual. Your saying that the origin of white identity/whiteness is inextricably linked to the origin of white supremacist racism, so therefore the two cannot be disconnected am I right? I'm not sure if I buy into that because I give the individual more credit for being intelligent enough to critique white supremacist racism and reject it.
Maybe we need to look at the origins of white supremacist racism in order to get to an answer.
I also dont think its possible to write off the identity of an entire race and say find a new one this one's tainted. Nate probably has his own white identity/whiteness with out buying into the superiority complex/white supremacist racism. Do you think that because white supremacist racism exists that white people as a race have nothing in their history to be positive about?
Is it that you think white identity/whiteness and white supremacist racism are the same thing? Nate and I both seem to disagree with you. I'm not missing your point, I just dont agree with it.
Question:Are we just arguing over semantics?
Nate,
You can get that book if your willing to go to a new bookstore. Kramerbooks its independent, and the book is around 14 dollars. oh that only counts if you live in DC.
Question: What IS white culture?
I really cant figure it out. I think in my mind white americans spend so much time appropriating I really cant identify what is originally "white" anymore.
Why would white identity have a positive of negative label connected to it? I feel like saying one identity or another is positive or negative is an extremely value loaded statement. Identity is an extremely personal understanding of history, culture, family. I dont feel like ones identity should be judged as negative and another judged as positive. (disclaimer: the only reason I can ask this question is because I feel that white supremacist racism isnt always connected to white identity. It totally depends on the attitude of the white person. So this question only asks about a person who's white identity is not corrupted by white supremacist racism. )
Question for both of you: Can white identity be separated from white privilege?
keep in mind white privilege and white supremacist racism are not the same thing.
-White supremacist racism is an attitude, ideology, and intstitutionalized system of oppression.
-White privilege is a set of benefits only bestowed upon/and attainable by white people, as a result of this system of oppression.
(is this question what we've been trying to get at the whole time? and we just gummed it up with semantics talk?)
i swear i never mean to write such long posts, but then my mind keeps going. at the end I feel like I should have just written a paper or something.hehe
my point is that regardless of the individuals intention the symbol reinforces and conjures up something that is based on history.
just like all other symbols.
just like the word nigger.
even in arguments in favor of the word "nigga" there is an admittance that the original symbol, nigger, is universally negative. nigger is not a race anymore than white or black is. it is a social construct used to identify people.
and people recognize the origins of the symbol and choose to free themselves from it by not identifying with it.
so even if white people choose to modify white and called themselves "snowhites" they would be participating in a universal recognition of the negative origins of the symbol of whiteness when used to classify humans and would be embarking on a journey to find something else. even if what they immediate found was very similar to what they were freeing themselves from.
just like malidoma patrice some's ancestors spoke to him about the power of speaking in the strangers language. regardless of his intention he was to be careful with it because it was not created for his use or with his need to articulate what was inside of him in mind, and therefore could have ill effects on him. did it mean if he used it he was an evil person? no.
but it meant that he needed to understand it and know it for what it was.
sure the individual might be intelligent enough to critique something but no individual can change the meaning and energy behind symbols.
if they do it is only temporary and is because a cover up of the truth has been allowed to take place. it is temporary because once the true meaning is re-discovered the energy of that true meaning returns with the knowledge of it.
so even if white people try and change the meaning of whiteness by burying the history of its negative origins, or even if black people were to try and change the meaning of nigger by doing the same, once someone realized where the words come from the negative energy pops right back up.
and i am not writing of the identity of an entire race.
THERE IS NO "WHITE" RACE. any anthropologist will tell you that.
"the white race" is a social construct created by Europeans to reinforce the social, political and economic (and perhaps spiritual) need or desire for superiority.
whether someone chooses to identify themselves under something more honest and accurate is up to them.
if a white person has a white identity without buying into the superiority complex at all, even historically, i'd like to hear some examples.
if so what's their origins? are they tied to jolly Christmases? America the great sessions? apple computer? the invention of ford cars? or fast food?
any things positive that "So called white people" do are rooted in something other than whiteness, except when they are doing something that moves them towards a critique of whiteness, such as punk rock, skateboarding, etc (countercultures that try and reject their whiteness or at least voice the frustrations of being "white".)
SCWP have things to be proud of but they are always rooted in something other than "whiteness", like perhaps traditions that stem from European sub-cultures, or like i said modern countercultures that try and reject their ties to the whiteness and its origin and reason for existing... mainly the separation of people from the rest of humanity.
This link about 'Alternative Futures of Whiteness' may be helpful.
Again definition and clarification are key. If SCWP can reach a point of contact where they can critically analyze themselves, then, yeah whiteness as a social construct will die a much needed death.
But identity has many layers...on one layer is the social construct of 'whiteness'-- which would include the privilege dynamic, the binary thinking modes, the historical evolution out of racialized property relations.
But on another layer, in the popular usage, whiteness just functions like an identifier of EuroAmericans.
Yes, symbols have power because of memory. I'm glad you brought up the example of the word nigger/nigga.
In reality, if no one remembered the word being used negatively, it could come to mean something positive. And the reality is that it is used positively on a daily basis by many people, who are not concerned about the 'true' meaning. (I really don't think there is any 'true' meaning of a word in an objective sense).
Thats not an argument for using the word. But it does speak to the fact that whether or not I 'identify' as white, I am thought of as 'white', by both blacks and whites.
Though its good to critically analyze whiteness and call for the destruction of its associated values, I just think the investiture of time and energy by both sides into the power of this symbol can be counterproductive to the actual goal.
Its like waging guerilla warfare...you don't overthrow the government you want to get rid of by standing in the public square and saying 'we should get rid of this government.' You organize your forces, get power, struggle, gain new recruits through personal interaction, and then, maybe, eventually, you are in a position to actually dismantle the government (whiteness)
Does that make sense?
if we can agree that "whiteness" is in fact the "government" that needs to be dismantled...
then we can start to talk about realistic ways to actually do that.
my first concern is getting people to recognize that this "government"/whiteness must be dismantled.
my second concern (perhaps performed simultaneously) is to figure out to most strategic way of doing so.
but that's a different conversation. (that i am definitely willing to have)
"the point is that white identity was created as a symbol for a superiority complex. so how are you going to get rid of the superiority complex without also getting rid of the symbol?"
This is where we are missing each other. I dont agree that white identity was created as a symbol for a superiority complex.
the reason I dont agree: I dont think white identity was "created" in a certian place and time. White identity has been formed throughout European history. I dont think any identity is simply "created", I think identity is very dynamic, everchanging, and extremely personal.
I also think that white identity really developed in America, white supremacist racism has been around alot longer than America has. White identity and white supremacist racism are definitely connected. I'll leave it at that
"so even if white people try and change the meaning of whiteness by burying the history of its negative origins, once someone realized where the words come from the negative energy pops right back up."
I have to say white identity, whiteness is such a BAD term to use in this discussion. If were trying to have an intelligent discussion, you really have to use a different term than that to describe what you are saying. Its way to vauge and can be interpreted/misinterpreted/defined in so many different ways.
We need to agree on terms here. We cant have a discussion if were defining things differently.
When you say change the meaning of whiteness, do you mean change the meaning of white identity?
If so what do you think the "meaning" of white identity is?
I think that an anthropologist or biologist will also tell you that there is no such thing as race at all. Your right there is no white race, just the same as there is no black race, or asian race or any race. On a biological level we are all the same. Race is all a social construct meant to keep people separated.
"if a white person has a white identity without buying into the superiority complex at all, even historically, i'd like to hear some examples."
Every single white person I associate with doesnt buy into the white superiority complex/white supremacist racism. I dont associate with a hell of a lot of white people because its not easy to meet white people that understand white supremacist racism, but they do exist. And I think Jon Brown would be a good historical example.
"something that moves them towards a critique of whiteness, such as punk rock, skateboarding, etc (countercultures that try and reject their whiteness or at least voice the frustrations of being "white".)"
I totally disagree with this, your giving these countercutures WAY too much credit. (I'm not sure why you mentioned skatebording, its not even political) Speaking as a person who has been involved and still has quite a few punk friends. Punk Rock has NEVER critiqued Race on any real level. Sure there are groups of punk kids who understand racism and alot of punk kids say they are against racism. The reality in the punk scene is that most punk kids come from white, middle class backgrounds, leading most of these kids to begin and end the discussion on race with "theres no black or white dude, were all just human" which not only cuts off any important conversation on race and racism, it meshes all punk kids into this illusion of similar experiences ("were all the same") when it comes to race. Virtually rendering a person of color who experiences race and racism invisible in the punk scene.
You did an article on AfroPunk, did you watch the movie? Its all about this issue of Black kids in the punk scene being invisible and exotified by white kids. Punk kids are voicing their frustrations of being privileged on a cultural/economic/social level, but they typically stop there. I think your confusing a cultural critique with a critique of racism. Punk is a cultural critique, I definitly will say that but it ends with culture, critique of race doesnt have a place in the punk scene yet, punk kids of color are trying to change that. And James' movie brought alot of those kids together.
Can white identity be separated from white privilege?
keep in mind white privilege and white supremacist racism are not the same thing.
-White supremacist racism is an attitude, ideology, and intstitutionalized system of oppression.
-White privilege is a set of benefits only bestowed upon/and attainable by white people, as a result of this system of oppression.
I really want to get to this question so I'm reposting it
It depends on what you mean.
White skin has certain benefits in America, but its not the beginning or ending of all benefits based on identity.
You can be white and be aware/cognizant of the privilege of white skin in American culture. But That doesnt mean white privilege stops working for you. Can a SCWP person 'not' have white privilege? Even those who don't identify as 'white' will still benefit economically and socially from it (it has a cost, which makes it an ambigous benefit).
Its like that debate over whether one can resist the'system' and simultaneously be part of it. The 'positive' (as in historically sustainable and 'true') identity is created through struggle.
Although I think its possible, for 'positive' white identity to exist in some kind of ideal world, I again, just don't see that it should be the main focus because its too easy to get sidetracked into ambiguities and theory.
Better to change the label to EuroAmerican, drop the word white, and then I don't see there being this confusion about identity and responsibility.
Because then, you can be clear there are subcultures of European which have their own sustainable and valid traditions, history, language, and culture. You can acknowledge the historical tradition of European-descended peoples in America. (and even their contributions)
At the same time, you can critique the cultural values of European philosophy which became the ideological basis for the emergence of whiteness in America. Individuals ought to be responsible for the degree to which they have internalized the values of this system and seek to 'deprogram' themselves using a variety of strategies.
IMHO.
i don't care if it was "formed" through a period of a million years.
it was created.
the question is why was it created? what was the need for "whiteness" and the propagation of the symbol/term throughout history?
you're circling on whiteness, white identity, white, etc...
i just think you're a few steps behind here.
what does it matter if white identity can be separated from white privilege?
even if it can, thats not the point.
if i'm white, in this discussion i'm not just concerned with any tangible, observational bonuses i get because of my skin color.
i'm concerned with the connection i continue to associate myself with... a concocted identity based solely on the need for superiority.
who can want to associated with that and still be looked at as someone who is about true foundational improvement and healing?
it leaves no where for me to turn to, it leaves no room to change from the positive "version" to negative "version". or even somewhere inbetween.
there is a positive, or at least a neutral, or at least complex (i.e. human) "EUROPEAN" identity because there are some sub-cultures of "Europe" that formed based on complex human activity.
there is not a positive white identity. because it didn't form out of complex human activity, it formed out of a specific desire or need for supremacy.
there's only white history because the history books say so. it could easily have been written in a way that maintained the differentiation of the European sub-cultures.
white identity can't be separated from white supremacy, simply because of the history that points back to JUST that motivation for the creation of the identity, AND NOT a complex group of factors that formed the identity.
when whiteness was created there was no common need for a "white language" or a white currency or a white cuisine based on geography and weather patterns or a white spirituality.
this is true human identity created out of a bag of unique human needs and desires.
just like nigger can never be separated from black inferiority because of the history that point back to JUST that motivation for the creation of the identity and not a complex group of factors that formed the identity.
white privilege is the short term manifestation. it's a small fry. it's the type of shit you'll see being discussed in Newsweek because it's non-threatening to the foundational assumptions of this society.
i can support nate's comment that the word be ditched.
You can be condescending to me all you want. But you need to learn how to have a conversation with people who dont agree with you. Do you even read my posts?
You think "I'm a few steps behind" because you dont really understand what I'm saying.
Perfect Example
"white privilege is the short term manifestation. it's a small fry. it's the type of shit you'll see being discussed in Newsweek because it's non-threatening to the foundational assumptions of this society"
This statement really shows that you dont understand the depth to which white privilege IS institutionalized, and IS the foundation of this society. To say its non-threatening is rediculous.
Nate,
I totally agree with you that white privilege isnt going to disappear because someone recognizes it.
I guess I was aiming my question more at the internal experience of identity.
True, that it makes since for white people to work toward changing the title to Euro American, its a nice idea,more accurate, but I dont think it matters in any big way. Whether or not White people call themselves white or Euro isnt going to change or challenge the realities of white privilege or white supremacist racism. Call yourself white or Euro your still white, and benefit from white privilege. The question isnt changing the name, its changing the system and thought processes of white privilege.
i wasn't meaning to be condescending at all.
you're looking at "changing the system and thought processes of white privilege"...
of course i understand the depth to which white privilege is institutionalized, yadda yadda. and me saying it's non-threatening is OF COURSE relative.
i'm saying you can go deeper and attack the issue at a more fundamental base.
institutional racism and white skin based privileges are the symptoms of unhealthy people.
what i'm saying is that there is an internal redirection that ought to take place on the part of SCWP and those trying to assimilate to become SCWP.
that redirection attacks the validity of "whiteness" and asks for a seeking of a more healthy and human foundation of identity (even if only by name, title or association)
if you are trying to take away privileges from someone who clings to white identity they will continue to fight you, by resistance and/or through the creation of other realities/systems that allow more privileges to exist. because white identity relies on the IDEA of privilege or "otherness" (i.e. supremacy) because that's what is was created for.
you said something interesting here: "The question isn't changing the name, its changing the system and thought processes of white privilege."
i agree that changing the system and thought processes are important. but i don't want to engage in a war that has no end in sight.
if you can't get people to change or see a problem with the superficial identifier you're not going to get them to help change the system and the thought process that reinforces that superficial identifier.
an internal redirection (separating themselves from a historical identity that is by definition a precursor to supremacist action, etc) on the part of SCWP for their own health allows for an actual end of this battle to become realistic because it allows us to be on the same side.
I just want to jump into this discussion (a little late). You guys have a very interesting conversation going.
A couple points I want to add:
j9, you have to use the terms "white" and "whiteness" in this discussion because the these terms are exactly what's being discussed.
Nathaniel, I totally agree with what you wrote here: "the survival of the human species demands that we change our behavior, and rid ourselves of that separation from the rest of humanity."
Now so far it seems that this discussion has gotten turned from the real focus: what is the first step in ridding White people's cultural separation from humanity?
I think Brian is saying that the first step in doing that is getting White people to recognize that there is even a problem with the whole color identity thing in the first place. Human beings are not colors (This is becomming more and more true as people are born to parents of more than one race.). We are people from places and the cultures that come from those places.
It seems that after much discussion, Nathaniel agrees that people recognizing that we don't need to (and really shouldn't) identify by color could be a good first step in closing the humanity gap between Whites and other humans.
I agree as well that we should all stop using color as our primary identifiers. Based on the history of Black Americans in the US, we can see that changing the name the group goes by is not all that difficult. The hard part is getting people to understand why they are changing their identifier and then to get others to know and respect why they are calling people by the new term.
"Based on the history of Black Americans in the US, we can see that changing the name the group goes by is not all that difficult. The hard part is getting people to understand why they are changing their identifier and then to get others to know and respect why they are calling people by the new term."
YES. So I'm going to put SCWP into the Google Search Engine a couple thousands times...maybe that'll get things cranking. LOL.
Seriously, this is a fascinating discussion.
In answer to your question Tasha, I think this old post still applies..you have to scroll past the article (or read it first!) to see the conversation.
Post a Comment