Who Invented White People?

[noiretextatique]

This is a really interesting article I found while surfing on the subject of "white people" and race.
I selected a section at the end of the article that I found most interesting because it discusses "white guilt," a subject that came up in a recent thread.
I find it perplexing and frustrating that so many discussions of race here at DU tend to focus on definitions of INDIVIDUAL racism, e.g., everybody CAN BE racist...when race has been, and remains such a divisive issue in this country, and certainly continues to play a role in the political, economic, and social realms of life in america. It plays a role in who is electable and who gets elected, for example.
So, I would like to declare the individual definition issue resolved:
EVERYBODY CAN BE RACIST OK!?!?!

Can we talk about something more substantial on the subject of race than the fact that everybody CAN BE racist? Is it possible?
I hope this article will stimulate such a discussion.


A Talk on the Occasion of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, 1998
by Gregory Jay
Professor of English, University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee

http://www.uwm.edu/~gjay/Whiteness/Whitenesstalk.html

For white people, race functions as a large ensemble of practices and rules that give white people all sorts of small and large advantages in life. Whiteness is the source of many privileges, which is one reason people have trouble giving it up. It is important to stress that to criticize whiteness is not necessarily to engage in a massive orchestration of guilt. Guilt is often a distracting and mistaken emotion, especially when it comes to race. White people are fond of pointing out that as individuals they have never practiced discrimination, or that their ancestors never owned slaves. White people tend to cast the question of race in terms of guilt in part because of the American ideology of individualism, by which I mean our tendency to want to believe that individuals determine their own destinies and responsibilities. In this sense it is un-American to insist that white Americans benefit every day from their whiteness, whether or not they intend to do so. But that is the reality. Guilt, then, has nothing to do with whiteness in this sense of benefitting from structural racism and built-in privileges. I may not intend anything racial when I apply for a loan, or walk into a store, or hail a cab, or ask for a job -- but in every circumstance my whiteness will play a role in the outcome, however "liberal" or "anti-racist" I imagine myself to be.
White men have enormous economic advantages because of the disadvantages faced by women and minorities, no matter what any individual white men may intend. If discrimination means that fewer qualified applicants compete with you for the job, you benefit. You do not have to be a racist to benefit from being white. You just have to look the part.

The privileges of whiteness are the not-so-secret dirty truth about race relations in America. Three decades after Dr. King, we should be able to see that our blindness to whiteness has crippled us in our walk toward equality and justice and freedom. As the national conversation on race continues, let us resolve to make whiteness an issue, and not just on this holiday or during Black History Month. When we talk about race in America, we should be talking about the invention of whiteness, and about what David Roediger calls the "abolition of whiteness." From this perspective, the end of racism will not come when America grants equal rights to minorities. Racism will end only with the abolition of whiteness, when the white whale that has been the source of so many delusions is finally left to disappear beneath the sea of time forever.

http://www.uwm.edu/~gjay/Whiteness/Whitenessbib.html

[Cheswick2.0]

1. I must be more dense than usual today

I am not sure if I understand the point.

[noiretextatique]

2. the point is to spark a discussion on race

that goes beyond "everybody can be racist," the most oft-repeated line in the thread "am i a racist," and perhaps the most oft-repeated line in ANY thread about race here.
the point is to examine what "white guilt," and other oft-repeated phrases are about. the point is...discussion :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

4. I didn't mean to sound confrontational

Of couse it is to spark a discussion.

[noiretextatique]

7. sorry, cheswick...i am a bit touchy

actually...i am really annoyed, but not with you. my apologies.

[Cheswick2.0]

16. no problem, I am very tired and not very bright today

My mind is not engaging. I think I will read a bit more before I jump in.

[Karenina]

6. Being white means

Never having to say you're sorry. Hi KX! Hi Cheswick! :hi:

[noiretextatique]

8. hey karenina

:hi: and it means you can fuck up until you are 40 and be dumb as a post, but if you have enough money, are male, and profess to be "saved": you too can be pResident!

[boxster]

26. Bush didn't become President because he is white.

He became President because his family is rich and connected and because his father was President. His father's cronies got Bush elected (along with an ignorant, stupid American public).

Not every rich white person can become President. Just ask Steve Forbes.

[salin]

30. yet it is a factor

don't see any wealthy non-white dynasties with as many connections to pull the ass out of as many business fuckups and still be able to go on to be elected governor let alone president. Just not the same kind of deeply entrenched and enmeshed networks among the powerful that are in place for those who are not white. This does not mean that any white person can become president - just to say that this scenario would not have played out to enable junior had he not been from an old, established, white family.

[redqueen]

46. That's only for 'white' countries, though, right?

Are the fortunate-sons and elites in every country all over the world white?

[salin]

48. my US-centricity shows

was specifically talking domestically - but didn't clarify. Thanks.

[noiretextatique]

60. this discussion is about america

and what "whiteness" means in america. whiteness clearly doesn't mean the same thing in zimbabwe or thailand or india that it does here.

[salin]

63. there could be other interesting discussions

of other countries that point to the social construction of "race" and "other" - for example the discriminated class in Japan, is Japanese - however members are quickly identified and ostracized even though they are of the same race. Point in that case - is what the construction means - and then how it is used individually and societally. But that is a discussion for another day - and one that I only have nominal exposure/information about.

[noiretextatique]

the untouchables...

hey, i agree...the discussion can and should expand. but, sometimes when discussing race it does expand...right back to the "everybody does it" definitions. i thought the comment i responded to was heading in that direction, and i am LONGING for a more focused discussion.
but, perhaps we can focus and expand :D

[salin]

70. focused... on DU?

;-)

[noiretextatique]

73. LOL...what the hell am i thinking?

:hangover: focused?!?! :dunce:

:D

[noiretextatique]

68. the untouchables...

hey, i agree...the discussion can and should expand. but, sometimes when discussing race it does expand...right back to the "everybody does it" definitions. i thought the comment i responded to was heading in that direction, and i am LONGING for a more focused discussion.
but, perhaps we can focus and expand :D

[boxster]

57. No, it isn't a factor.

Race has nothing to do with Bush being President. It has everything to do with him being a Republican and being the son of a former President.

There are plenty of other rich, connected white men who haven't been President thanks to their "fuckups", as you put it. Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart, to name two. They couldn't accomplish that which you claim Bush has accomplished because of his race.

At the same time, there are non-whites who have succeeded in spite of their fuckups. Clarence Thomas comes immediately to mind. Colin Powell has succeeded in spite of the differences of opinion he has had with much of the Bush team, including holdovers from Bush I's administration.

Gee, what do Clarence Thomas and George W. Bush have in common? They're both firmly entrenched in the Reagan/Bush empire and are both staunchly conservative. The same people who supported Clarence Thomas are supporting Bush. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with ideologies and connections.

Bush is President because his family, his connections, and his party own the media and the Supreme Court, not because of the color of his skin.

Edit: typo

[noiretextatique]

64. right...we've had soooo many black, female presidents

i forgot all about them :eyes:
bush is acting as president, in part, because his is white and male...it's the "custom" in this country. the office is, in reality, reserved for white males.

[boxster]

72. Here's what I responded to....

"and it means you can fuck up until you are 40 and be dumb as a post, but if you have enough money, are male, and profess to be "saved": you too can be pResident!"

That essentially says, "Hey, as long as you're a rich white guy, you can do whatever you want and still be President".

That's bullshit. Ask Ted Kennedy. Or Gary Hart. They certainly couldn't buy or influence their way into the White House.

My point is, Bush becoming President had nothing to do with being white. It was *solely* the result of connections, power, money, and ideology. He is President *solely* because of name recognition, advertising, media influence, and the stupidity and ignorance of nearly half of the American public.

It is for those same reasons that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court. And, last time I checked, he wasn't a white male. He's rich, influential, connected, and ideologically conservative. He's made it to that position in spite of the fact that he's a weasel and a sexist.

Saying that Bush can fuck up and be President because he's a white male is misguided, and it ignores the real sources of power and influence in this country. As you and others correctly point out, it doesn't take a fuckup to disqualify non-white males - our society has disqualified them even if they are imminently qualified and ideologically pure.

I'm not disagreeing with that premise. I'm saying that claiming Bush is President because he's white ignores the people and the power and the influences that got him elected.

I seriously doubt that Clarence Thomas helped elect Bush because he is white. He helped elect him because he's part of the same powerful connected organization and because he shares an ideology with Bush.

[salin]

75. talking past points

here is where your and the other point merges.

If he were not white - he would not have the level of power/influences/networks required for the level of bailout from the fuckups and then political promotion.

Doesn't have those connects because he is white. It is more that not being white works as an exclusion (from that level of connections) factor.

btw, Thomas has NEVER been elected - ever, by any constituent group. He was promoted, as a token (taking the place of Marshall) to demonstrate that the GOP was "good on race", and he had already proven his ideological purity (and malleability to follow other folks directives.) Do you really think that he, of next to no bench experience, would have been appointed had it not been for the seat vacated by Marshall? Really?

[noiretextatique]

84. oh...poor ted kennedy and gary hart

can only be senators, not president :nopity:
i am not ignoring anything...you are. gw bush is where is he is because he is a white man, one with connections and money. it's not a reality i relish, but it is a reality.
and the point again: no one, except a white male could do that in america. that doesn't mean that gary hart and ted kennedy can do it...but even their "issues" didn't completely destroy their careers.

[boxster]

86. To quote myself from another thread....

The race ALWAYS comes down to a couple of rich, connected white guys, so using race as the basis for this discussion just seems a little disconnected from reality.

Of course he's white. But then...they're ALL white.

To paraphrase myself from another thread, saying that Bush is President because he's white is like saying that a college graduate is a college graduate because they received a diploma.

Being a white male is unfortunately the only way that you have to be a moderately successful presidential candidate in the first place, much less be elected President.

The fact that he's President isn't because he's white. They're ALL white.

[noiretextatique]

90. you said this already...

and i think we are talking past each other...so let's stop, shall we?
thanks.

[boxster]

91. Hmm, that would be why my subject line was...

"To quote myself from another thread".

[boxster]

89. Explain Marion Berry.

He's not a white male and his screwups didn't destroy his career, either. The guy got elected mayor of Washington, DC, AFTER serving time in prison for drug charges.

Where Bush is concerned, race isn't the underlying factor. Power, connections, and money are much, MUCH more responsible for Bush being President than race is.

[noiretextatique]

92. is marion berry president? i didn't think so...

but...his constiuency may have something to do with why he was re-elected. and unlike bush and thomas, he was actually elected.

[Solomon]

114. Let me jump in here please since I'm from DC.

Let me explain Marion Barry to you. (It's Barry, not Berry).

Marion was so effective at running the district government that white prosecutors spent millions upon millions of dollars trying to find something wrong to get rid of him.

When they couldn't find anything wrong, couldn't get him on taking money and what not, they resorted to the old time tested stick a wire on a female thing.

In other words, let me be very clear, when they couldn't find that he had committed any public wrongs, they resorted to going into his personal wrongs to get him.

They did the "Clinton" to him, before they did it to Clinton. Used a personal flaw, to get rid of someone when they couldn't get a public wrong.

Please note that the misdemeanor conviction that he received, would not have caused anybody else to serve jail time. But the judge, being chagrined by the jury's verdict, sent him to jail because he was Barry.

People who don't live here don't know how effective a mayor he was, so they will never understand why he was re-elected. They'll just go on thinking their racist thoughts.

[Baltimoreboy]

123. It's not racist to think a crack smoker shouldn't be mayor

Sorry, Mayor Barry was a scourge on D.C. and the city's image has still NOT managed to improve as a result. Singlehandedly he set back DC statehood a couple decades.

[noiretextatique]

124. apparently, the people of DC didn't agree with you

as to the issue of DC statehood, i doubt he really had much influence at all. some folks claim the oj verdict changed their minds about affirmative action...but, call me crazy...i doubt they were supportive before the verdict.
too bad bush's cocaine use didn't have the same effect as did barry's.

[salin]

66. again

note that I did say in the earlier post (if read carefully rather than trigger responses) that being white does not mean it will fall the way it did with bush.

What you seem to have missed is that the particular connections, networks, family connections etc that enabled him to get the $ for his businesses, to bail out his businesses, to skirt the SEC laws, to parlay a (relatively) minimal investment into the image of a major league baseball owner and millions of dollars is not yet available - at that level - to children of nonwhite families.

The point was that someone who had fucked up as much and as royally as Bush, should not have ever had the opportunity to run for let alone to become president. You are correct that it is ALL about his family and connections that explain it.

The point I raise is that while social/political and financial networks are becoming more available to nonwhites of certain classes or who make it through the elite educational systems... the broad network (collectively of ALL of the social/financial/political) and deep pockets available to a) bail bush out and then b) promote him politically to the highest office in the land... would not have been available to him, had he not been White.

Colin Powell was not bailed out royally from military service, to bankrupted businesses, from SEC investigations of insider trading, all before embarking on a major political career - he is not comparable - and if you hadn't noticed neither he, nor Clarence Thomas were elected to the highest office in the land. If history had not unfolded in the way it has in the past 3 years, it might have been possible for Powell to run (and even perhaps be successful) for the highest office. Had he been successful - it would not be inspite of a life of heavy fuckups that would prevent any other person from being elected mayor let alone governor nor president.

[boxster]

78. Bush wasn't elected, either.

And, Clarence Thomas had a lot to do with that. Do you suppose that Clarence (s)elected him because Bush is white? Obviously not. It's about power and ideology.

"Had he been successful - it would not be in spite of a life of heavy fuckups that would prevent any other person from being elected mayor let alone governor nor president."

Ok, then explain Marion Berry.

I'm not "missing" the fact that Bush couldn't have gotten to where he was without being white. I'm saying that it's irrelevant and using race as a basis for explaining away the disaster that is the current administration is ignoring everything that got him there.

I fully understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't agree that it should be this huge issue. Frankly, I think it should be a non-issue, because it's irrelevant! With a couple of very rare exceptions (Jesse Jackson, for one), EVERY other moderately successful presidential candidate of the past 220 years has been a wealthy, politically connected, white male.

So, the whole discussion seems like little more than an excuse to blame white society for the evil that is George Bush. The fact that our society hasn't come to their senses and accepted that someone other than a rich white male can be president is terribly unfortunate, but obviously true.

The point is...the fact that Bush is President has so little to do with race that I just don't understand the reasoning behind making this huge racial issue out of it.

Sure, he couldn't fuck up and be President if he wasn't white. That's pretty damn obvious. In our current society, he couldn't *not* fuck up and *not* be white and be President, either.

Neither could Clinton or JFK or FDR or any of Bush's predecessors. Unfortunately, being a white male is the ticket in.

It's like a job interview with a prerequisite. If a company hires only college graduates and uses that as a requirement before you're even eligible for an interview, the fact that you have a college degree then becomes irrelevant in the comparison to other candidates because they ALL have college degrees. Saying "you only got this job because you have a college degree" is meaningless because anyone who could have possibly gotten the job is in the same boat.

[noiretextatique]

94. so, you admit that being a white man is a prerequisite for being

president of the united states, right? the difference with the college degree prerequisite is: anyone can get a college degree. a college degree it's not something that's genetic like gender, and a social construct conferred because of genetics like "whiteness."

[boxster]

105. Admit what? What everyone on earth knows?

Any idiot who can open a history book or has paid attention to any election in the past two centuries knows that this is reality. Quite unfortunate, but true.

Besides, I don't see where I ever suggested otherwise. In fact, I have quite thoroughly discussed the exact opposite.

[noiretextatique]

109. then why have you been challenging my statement

about gw bush for several posts now?

[noiretextatique]

58. the point is: in america, NO black man could do that

not a mexican man, not a japanese man, not an indian man, etc. ONLY a white man COULD do that...for various reasons. that doesn't necessarily all rich white men can do it, but it certainly is the case the ONLY a rich white man could do it.

[boxster]

62. Agreed.

However, claiming that Bush's race is the source of his rise to the presidency is misguided. He is President because he's connected and he shares the same ideology that is shared by many of the most powerful people in our society.

Those powerful people tend to support just about anyone who shares their beliefs, and that support is not limited to white men or white people in general.

Just look at Clarence Thomas.

[noiretextatique]

65. clarence thomas...

is similar to bush in that he a pawn and a puppet. however, clarence thomas was deposited on the supreme court, not in the white house.

[salin]

67. not to mention

that Thomas, to my knowledge, has never been elected by constituents. Would he have been an embraced and successful candidate?

[noiretextatique]

69. hell no!

certainly not by me, and i doubt very seriously by all those who claim to support him.

[salin]

71. hehe maybe he should run in Utah

since he was so strongly embraced by Hatch.

Or Missouri - since he was promoted so stalwartly by Danforth.

Bet he would do great in either state... :eyes:

[boxster]

74. So, do you suppose that Clarence Thomas helped (s)elect Bush

because Bush is white?

Or because they share ideologies?

[salin]

76. how did Thoma help elect Bush?

what constituency did he influence to vote for bush who would have voted for Gore, otherwise?

[boxster]

79. I sincerely hope that you're joking.

The Supreme Court selected Bush. They stopped the counting of votes in Florida, handing Bush the election. Most post-election studies have shown that if the voting had continued, Gore would have won Florida and hence, the election.

So, I'd say that Clarence Thomas, who happens to be black, certainly had serious - and direct - influence over Bush becoming President.

Edit: typo

[noiretextatique]

82. that's quite true...thomas paid back bush's daddy

for his appointment on the court.

[salin]

102. not just poppy

but the whole old establishment whiteguy network (starting with reagan) that promoted him way over his head (eg higher positions than given to other folks of comparable experience) to begin with. Has everything to do with that white-guy network. Not saying others can't belong, ascribe and even participate in some of the networks - just not at the same level of interlocking networks.

[noiretextatique]

121. funny how that happens

their boy gets promoted because they know he will do their bidding. and he will do their bidding, because he is grateful...and if he doesn't...he knows his ass is history.

[noiretextatique]

81. how the hell do it know? but, whatever the reason

most of the other black people who voted in 2000 (at least the ones who got their votes counted) had the good sense to vote for gore, to the tune of 90+%. that's because the other white guy was so much worse.

[boxster]

85. Yes.

And, it also emphasizes my point a little.

The race ALWAYS comes down to a couple of rich, connected white guys, so using race as the basis for this discussion just seems a little disconnected from reality.

Of course he's white. But then...they're ALL white.

To paraphrase myself in another thread, saying that Bush is President because he's white is like saying that a college graduate is a college graduate because they received a diploma.

Being a white male is unfortunately the only way that you have to be a moderately successful presidential candidate in the first place, much less be elected President.

[noiretextatique]

88. well...that is the point, isn't it?

they are all white, they have always been all white. it's really the point of the entire discussion, and it is relevant to the point of this discussion.

[Karenina]

31. Only rich and white need apply!

ROTFLMAO!!!

[htuttle]

3. Thanks for posting this

I found it to be an interesting read. Actually, they pegged the invention of 'white people' a bit earlier than I would have guessed. I was guessing it coincided with the rise of the industrial age, but they suggest it goes back a century or two earlier to the initial settling of North America and the revival of slavery.

Coming from a predominately Irish background, I had the impression that my family wasn't 'white' until the mid-to-late 1700s, but it sounds like they would have been considered 'white' (or 'nearly-white') in North America, but 'non-white' in much of Europe (especially Britain, of course) about a century earlier.

I would agree with the author that the concept of 'white people' has to go away. I can't think of a time when I've heard the concept of a 'white race' used in a positive manner. There simply isn't any good reason to separate the cultures of Europe from the rest of the planet in such a way.

[noiretextatique]

5. he mentions the book "how the irish became white"

in the bibliography. i've been thinking about posting something since the "multicultural" thread the other day. in that thread, someone was talking about self-segregation, but only as it related to people who weren't white. i pointed out that "white flight" is an example of self-segregation. then i read through the other thread "am i a racist," and i thought it would be useful to take a look a what "whiteness" means in this country.
i agree with the author also.

[Sparkle]

12. The irish wasn't considered white?

Geeze. They are the palest on the planet.

[noiretextatique]

18. "no dogs, or irish allowed"

the article discusses american whiteness, in particular, and irish people weren't afforded that privileged status.

[QC]

22. There's a lot more to whiteness than complexion.

That's the whole point of the opening post--that whiteness is a cultural construct, not a matter of biology.

[Terran]

27. "White" is metaphorical here

meaning having access to the privileges of being white, not being literally white.

A former landlord of mine in San Francisco, a British citizen and an older man, once told me and my partner that "The Irish are the n*ggers of Britain." So does that illuminate the idea that the Irish once weren't "white"?

Dirk

[Karenina]

37. The Brits and Irish can spot each other

at 50 paces. Hell, the Irish can tell you Protestant or Catholic at the same distance!

Ahh, that skin color conundrum. Sometimes it can be REALLY FUNNY if you growed up wit it and have perfected the SLAM DUNK.

How about those who can "pass?" :evilgrin:

[Terran]

47. Do I detect personal experience?

Are you "passing," my dear? :spank:

Yes, skin color is quite the conundrum all right. Just ask former Congressman Bob Barr.

[Karenina]

100. Here, check it out!

Joshua Solomon wondered the same thing, so he re-created John Gribben's journey as a black man in Black Like Me in his updated version Black Like Me '94. You can read it at www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/white/solomon.html

Boston Globe Racissmus macht Dumm
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/17/bias_taxes_brain_research_finds/

[mitchum]

119. Ah, do you also refer to him as "Passin' Bob"...

(because he is)

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. The Commitments:

On why a bunch of down-at-heel Dubliners should play soul music:
"Irish are the blacks of Europe and Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland and Northerners are the blacks of Dublin. So say it now: 'I'm black and I'm proud.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/thecommitmentsrhowe_a0b33f.htm
A great film (it's not really about racial issues, it's just a memorable line).

[noiretextatique]

61. it is a great film

and that is a very memorable line :D

[AspenRose]

135. Also the Quebecois

There is a book called "White N*ggers of North America," or something to that effect.

[buddhamama]

9. hey,

i haven't read the entire article yet, i will,
but your post brought to mind something that has been bothering me.

last night i saw a Western Union commercial in which a black man
is telling the camera that, he has to send money to his brother because his brother's electric bill is due (it's implied the brother doesn't have the money to pay it) and if he doesn't send the money, it'll be lights out.

now, my very first thought was they would never ever show a white person in a similar situation, because that image is not an acceptable one. we, as in white society, can accept the image of a poor black person
needing help and not paying their bills etc etc but, 'we' do not, cannot see ourselves that way. it is a reality we do not want to face. this 'subtle' racism is ingrained and inherent.

:hi: good to see you.

[kiahzero]

33. I think you're probably reading more into that ad than is realistic

They probably featured black actors in order to court black customers.

[buddhamama]

35. you think?

of course they're trying to sell a product-
however, racism is a reality, therefore my 'reading' in not that unrealistic.

Western Union would like to attract black customers but they must do so without offending the 'other' customers. so you give them an image, a 'role' or story of a black person that the general public can accept.

[kiahzero]

40. Wiring money, by necessity, means that you've got an urgent situation

It's not realistic at all to portray a situation in which the money isn't direly needed, either from a marketing standpoint, or the reality of the service (wiring money isn't nearly as cheap as just sending a check through the mail, but it's a lot quicker).

So, let's say you're Western Union. You're trying to sell your product, based on the fact that it's quicker than the mail for sending money. So you come up with a situation where someone needs money urgently (electric bill). You also decide you aren't doing as well as you would like in areas where there are heavy concentrations of black people, so you decide to feature black actors in your advertisement.

None of that makes Western Union racist, explicitly or even implicitly.

[Terran]

36. But she has a point.

It's not racist, per se, to depict a Black man having to wire money to a relative because the relative can't pay their utility bill. That happens all the time to people of lower income and those living in poverty. The issue for me is that Western Union will never do the same ad with white people, because we whites have this myth that most if not all poor people in this country are people of color. I'd say that's an aspect of what the article talks about--'constructing whiteness' includes just such mythmaking. Although on a per capita basis there are more poor Black people than white, numerically, poor white people far far outnumber poor Black people.

This is another related issue--thinking about poverty exclusively in terms of race. If poor people united across racial lines, there'd be far fewer poor people. But the Powers have managed to divide this country along racial lines, and have found it a useful tool in keeping the poor poor.

[kiahzero]

38. See, I don't know about that assertion

Here in Delaware, there's this company called SafeAuto, which provides minimum insurance coverage to drivers who can't afford anything more than what the law requires. Most of the people in the ads portrayed as customers are white.

I can try and think of more examples - I'm sure they exist.

[Terran]

45. I'm not saying it's universal.

I too have seen ads for credit counseling that were aimed at several different groups all at once. I'm just saying that I don't believe Western Union will do an ad quite that blatant and use white people. Many companies cater to people who have had bad luck, made bad decisions, or have low incomes, but they often minimize that aspect. Depicting someone who can't pay their utility bill, well, if you work with homeless agencies like I do, that's a big red light. Can't pay your utilities = eviction, quite often, or going without food, transportation or other necessities. It can be symptomatic of a very serious economic crisis for the household in question. And white people 'aren't supposed' to have problems like that, in the mythos under discussion. It's not the same as, say, not being able to pay your phone bill; you can survive without a phone.

[kiahzero]

49. I haven't seen the ad, so I could be wrong

But I doubt that it's portrayed in the way you describe... if only because, as you said, companies want to put the best face on everything in their advertising.

It may be that you interpret the ad differently due to your experience working with homeless agencies... I didn't attach any stigma to "utility bill" over "phone bill."

[Solomon]

115. Also look at the other side of the coin.

For decades look how whites have been shown on television commercials.

They are always opening gleaming refrigerators full of food, worried about how to put a shine on that shiny floor. Mr. Clean comes by, and whooosh, the floor's so clean you can eat off of it.

[noiretextatique]

98. this is targetted marketing

it wouldn't make a lot of sense to put black people in an ad airing in delaware...if they aren't your target audience in delaware.
western union's use of the african american man is targetted marketing...the ad is designed to appeal to poor black people...to get their money for sending wires.
i consider it more along the lone of the "poverty industry" type marketing (check cashing places, rent-to-own centers, etc) than anything else.
mother jones did an expose on the how the poverty industry companies, e.g., banks close down branches in poor neighborhoods, then open check-cashing places that charge high interest rates and fees. of course, these outlets are far more profitable, but keep poor people poorer.

[solinvictus]

107. Here in Tennessee too....

SafeAuto markets to the same target audience. Local businesses that typically server poor clients: check advance and cashing services, no credit home and cell phones, and used car lots market to blacks and whites. Their actors are either hyper-ghetto blacks with all the "bling bling" or stereotypical blue collar rednecks. It's more about economic class than race.

In Birmingham, Alabama Richard Arrington was mayor for nearly 20 years. When he was elected, he played race heavily because of a reaction to police brutality. All through his administration, he had a strong political machine backing every move to the point that the city council became a rubber stamp. Arrington enriched himself and a select group of cronies on public moneys and left nothing useful in his wake. The point is that political corruption knows no color, similar to Daley in Chicago. It's a matter of being an insider or an outsider.

[noiretextatique]

110. true...except at the highest levels

which is still white and male, for the most. certainly corruption isn't determined by color...did anyone say it was?

[Karenina]

39. Thank you, Dirk.

:toast:

[buddhamama]

44. thank you

you said it better than i did.

the poverty along racial lines was created and fostered(propaganda) by white power for the reasons you listed, to keep us fighting among each other and not figthing them. if we came together as a group,
the Power structure would collapse.

[bicentennial_baby]

83. I saw that and thought the same thing

Both people in the ad wiring money were non-white, and it really stood out to me. I had the same thoughts, as usual Cheryl! :hi:

[nonconformist]

106. Well, I've seen dozens upon dozens of commercials

For those Cash Advance Payday Loan and Title Loan places, and the people in the commercials are usually white. Not always, but usually. And if you're using a Cash Advance Payday Loan or Title Loan place, you're pretty down on your luck with few resources.

And to be fair, I seem to remember a Western Union commercial from awhile back where a son was sending his elderly mother money for something or another... and they were white.

[Zinfandel]

10. The more I look at history, way back in history I'm convinced white people

are the devil. And I'm a white person...the killing, slaughtering of races, almost to extinction, simply for fun and their imperialism, the greed & hatred, deceit, lies...pure sickos.

But then, maybe I'm just referring to the fucking white persons "churches". The goofy holier than thou bullshit religion that white people live by....as if all the above is OK cuz Jesus is coming back and they've convinced us, everything is fair if you just say a prayer...and that we whites have the express lane to heaven.



Fucking Bush & Cheney!!!!

[redqueen]

54. This leaves out such luminaries as Atilla the Hun

and the Egyptian empire.

The fact that the rise of the 'white' imperialists coincided with the industrial age does make them seem worse. I can't imagine any previous empires not taking advantage of whatever technological advances were available.

[jobycom]

11. That's so hard to get through to people, and it explains why

we have to have systemic and cultural solutions, not individual case-by-case solutions. Allowing a black applicant who was passed over for a job to sue for discrimination is fine, but the type of discrimination that results in black Americans being unemployed at twice the rates of white Americans, and underemployed at perhaps immeasurable rates, often has little to do with individual discrimination.

The discrimination in the work place, to take one area, begins before kindergarten, as schools in non-white neighborhoods are underfunded, understaffed, and often given lesser skilled teachers and administrators. Resegregation has made the problem worse as conservative and often even liberal courts have fallen for the fantasy that the need for forced desegregation has passed, that now the issue is purely economic because a few nonwhite students go to predominately white schools, and are thus offered as proof that the barrier are down but economics or cultural preference alone prevents black families from moving to better school districts. It ignores two facts-- first, as long as our school systems are based on property values, non-white schools are going to be underfunded and are going to perpetuate a cycle of poverty as under-educated students can't escape a cycle of poverty and thus wind up back in neighborhoods with poor property values so that their children can attend the same schools.

And second-- property values ARE based on race. Take any city-- I'll take Austin, since it's where I live-- and look at the "black" part of town. It is often close to the center of town and to the employment center. Yet white employees, and often black employees of higher income careers, prefer to drive PAST these housing districts to live in suburbs, even though this requires them to pay more in gas, spend more time in traffic. Why? We all know it's race. No matter how it is actually described, the core problem is the cultural difference that causes white people to spend more money and more time so they can live away from black people.

So this means that a black child has less opportunity to receive a good education than a white child, and this often results in a more-qualified (in terms of education and experience) white applicant. An individual black applicant can sue, but unless he was clearly better and can show that the employer really did just dislike black people, he can't win. The problem isn't discrimination against the individual, it's a cultural, systemic discrimination that has little to do with the individual attitudes towards race of either the applicant or the employer.

That's why I support Affirmative Action, and even more strongly enforced quotas. I welcome the concept of "reverse racism," because that is the goal-- to reverse racism. When white priveledges are removed, when employers and university deans and even high school principles are faced with the fact that they can't just hire around these obstacles, that they have to face these obstacles head on, than perhaps there will be a real effort to clean up from the bottom to the top. Better fund schools, for starts, and adjust the funding to give advantage to, not equality to, the historically underfunded schools. Fix them, then we can talk about equality.

Here in Texas our governor and Republican legislature is trying to fix the school funding issue. A decade ago a judge ruled that allowing school districts to tax themselves for school funds was discriminatory, and forced a fix commonly called "Robin Hood," because it takes all the money and distributes it to all districts equally. (Notice, rich white folks feel that the money is being stolen from them and given to the poor). This isn't much of a fix, but it's better than before. Now, though, the rich Republicans want to undo it. They are calling their efforts, not education reform, but property tax reform. THAT is exactly the problem, because that's exactly how these damned rich Repubs see it-- as a tax issue. Not an education issue, not a future of the nation issue. Not a human rights issue. IT's a question of whether they get to drive a Lexus instead of a Volvo.

That's where the problem has to be fixed, and where quotas force the fix. When these rich folk have to hire people they have undereducated, then it becomes in their best financial interest to properly fund education.

That's one area of discrimination. Has little to do with law enforcement, our prison system, insurance and credit rates... But no one is reading this by now, anyway, so I'll stop typing.

[noiretextatique]

116. i read your entire post...and i agree with every word you say

absolutely hit the nail of the head...a systemic problem will never be "fixed" on an individual basis. this is what the "everybody can be racist" stuff fails to address...i'll call it reality, of the kind you address so well in your discussion of school funding.
thanks so much for your post, jobycom. there are some other very good posts here, and some drive-by flippant ones (but i always expect that). i suppose i am still surprised that more people just don't get it...either i am very naive or very optimistic, i guess.
still...in 2004, it seems odd that our collective, national discourse on race is still at such a basic (or should i say base)level, with notable exceptions, of course. i suppose this is a part of the systemic problem also. peace.

[buddhamama]

13. hmmmm

on the issue of Irish indentured workers and slaves
and the hatred or racism felt born of economic fear,
through my reading i have come to think that, there wasn't fear in the beginning or hatred etc, i have read just the opposite actually that there existed among the Irish almost a kinship to slaves
because their situations were similar to those of the Irish.

this empathy, of course, scared the White power structure, and they consciously set out to create rift and cause fear through propaganda etc.

[QC]

20. Very true.

In the earliest years of the Colonial Era, the law treated black and white servants the same, other than the duration of their service. They ate the same foods, did the same work, lived in the same quarters, were both considered the property of their owners, their families could be split up, owners could bet them in card games, give them away, whatever.

What changed this was the alarming (to the planters) tendency of the black and white servants to see themselves as being in the same boat. They ran away together, had children together, and rebelled together. In response to this threat, the planters gave the white servants privileges that set them ever so slightly above the black servants and encouraged the two groups to resent each other. Divide and conquer. And it's still working for the elites to pit working class blacks and whites against each other.

[Karenina]

43. That old "horizontal bop"

will trump every time. Hey Mr DJ, got David Bowie?

[redqueen]

56. Still working in another way, too...

pitting the middle class against the poor.

Ahhh, divide and conquer. When will we ever learn?

[noiretextatique]

122. divide and conquer...exactly

sadly...i don't know that we will ever learn.

[noiretextatique]

23. that makes sense

:hi: hey there woman...great to see you! as i mentioned to a young woman the other day who was railing on about "minorities taking OUR government money that should go to white americans, first"...

racism is functions to keep people with similar economic/social/political interests at each other throats fighting over crumbs.

[buddhamama]

53. exactly- fighting over crumbs

so we're too busy figthing with each other to fight the real enemy-
Them. The ones who have created the system and wish to hold onto, reap the benefits.

:loveya:

[noiretextatique]

14. thanks to everyone who responded so far

i know some folks will not touch this, so i appreciate all your thoughtful responses...it's still such a taboo subject, in many ways. i actually need to do some work, since i am at work, but i will rejoin this discussion later. :hi:

[Sapphocrat]

51. I'll touch the hell out of it...

...but, of course, I would have touched it a lot sooner if all the subject had been, "Who Invented White Queer People?" ;)

To set the stage for what I'm about to write: My ancestral background is roughly 75% Italian, 25% Portuguese. I ended up with all the Portuguese genes... Portuguese people are usually either very light-skinned, or very dark-skinned, with little middle ground. I'm of the whiter variety, but with a characteristic, distinctive set of facial features that are recognizable if you've ever seen a bunch of Portuguese people in the same place at the same time. (Try a crab feed at the local Portuguese association hall -- everyone will look like me. LOL) Personally, I think we're a lusciously sexy people. :D

That said...

Good article, fine points, and not a thing with which I can disagree. Although, in all seriousness, it makes me wonder when the Italians became white. I have no historical reference to back me up (maybe some ed-u-ma-cated DUer can help), but as I understand it, Italians didn't become white until about 150 years ago.

Me, I grew up very white, in a very white town -- so white, that I was three or four before I ever met a black person, and when the first black kid enrolled in our school, I did the totally unthinkable white thing -- I asked him if I could touch his hair. (Hey, I was eight years old.) Fortunately, he was just as curious about me as I was about him.

Nevertheless, I have always (if you can believe this, after my charming little tale above) felt distanced from the "English, Scotch ... Dutch, Germans, and Swedes" mentioned in the article. (But not the French or the Irish, for reasons that I hope will become apparent in a moment.) It never had anything to do with white guilt (I developed that all on my own, after coming to the same conclusion -- that I have, and always will have, a distinct advantage in this society due solely to a quirk of genetics; I had a couple of ancestors who were extremely dark-skinned, while I turned out kinda pink) -- there just always seemed to be some sort of unspoken ethnic "purity" thing: The English, Scottish, etc., folks I grew up around always seemed to lord it over everybody else (particularly those of us whose dark-haired, dark-eyed, and semi-dark-skinned Western European ancestors just got offa da boat a mere 60 years earlier) that they were here first (huh? what Indians?), that their ivory-pure people came over on the Mayflower, that they were just so bloody white, and somehow, special.

They weren't special -- they were just assholes. And rather than instill any envy in me for their whiter-than-whiteness, they just made me wish I was more ethnic-looking than I already am. (Any ethnicity would do, just so I wasn't like them.) It finally got to the point that I began toying with the idea of changing my surname back to its original Portuguese, which is as Hispanic as a name can be, mostly out of pride, but, admittedly, partly out of the desire to distance myself further from all that sickening "purity." (The only reason I haven't done it is the headache of changing my passport, driver's license, etc.)

My point? I think my real problem is reverse racism -- I'm naturally suspicious of ultra-white people, and I resent the sort who make my race (now that society has decided I am white too, and no longer brown) look like a bunch of morans.

That doesn't erase the fact that I benefit from being white. I recognize it, although I'm not always aware of it, and I don't know what I personally can do to help even the playing field.

And not knowing what I can do is the cause of my white guilt.

Sorry for the disjointed rambling -- it's the result of a mere two hours' sleep (good ol' Insomnia Monster is back with a vengeance). I think I made a couple of interesting points in there somewhere. I hope. LOL

[noiretextatique]

104. hey sapphocrat, as i recall...italians got the "irish" treatment also

and weren't embraced into whiteness upon arrving to these shores. interestingly enough, there is a long-standing division between northern and southeren italians that my italian psychology professor referred to as racism, or the rather cumbersome "dominant white, male cultural paradigm."
thanks for sharing your story. i find this subject (the social construct of race) facinating...it was the focus of my undergraduate work.
i know there are varying degrees of whiteness, and varying degrees of white privilege. the classic examples are mixed race people, and since there are more and more of them, i know these folks are changing the old social contructs...thank goodness.
and btw...i think y'all are luciously sexy too :D
hey...get some sleep :boring: :hi:

[noiretextatique]

15. dupe

[chimpymustgo]

24. Thanks for posting this. It's easy for some folk to just not think about

this.

We all need to stop and think and read and talk - and look in the mirror.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. I've always thought that racism is fundamental...

to our species and is not so much racism as tribalism.

We form groups, and exclude "others." These groups can be families, clans, tribes, nations, religions... and everyone outside of the group is supect, and probably "inferior" in some way. It's easy for them to become an enemy.

I suppose there is some survival instinct working here, much as monkeys, apes, lions and ants will kill s stranger in their midst. Distrust of outsiders seems to be a basic theme in nature.

So, I'm of the "white" tribe, and there are some in this tribe who claim to be even "whiter" than others. Be that as it may, my tribe decided to rule the world a few hundred years ago, and managed to find some black, red, and brown tribes they could actually conquer.

Race? No, it's about power and rule, and those ruled just happened to be of a different color. When the rule ended, those of a diffrent color were still outsiders.

The power doesn't often come at the end of the spear or gun now, but it's economic and institutional.

Our species does have one curious difference from the apes, though-- we can choose recognize this as wrong, and do something about it.

Or, we cna choose not to.

[Karenina]

19. Race is such an artificial construct

so consistently and successfully used to perpetuate "man's inhumanity to man." I hereby declare it BEYOND THE PALE. ;-)

Sink or swim? Whooo, who-o-o-ooo, Iwonderwonderwonderwonder who-o-o-ooo? (Who was that again?)

Racism as a tactic is the basis for the barbarity America citizens are committing and allowing to be committed in their names. It is a horrific sight to behold. :cry: :cry: :cry:

[salin]

34. this written description

fits both on the individual - and societal level. Makes the heart heavy and makes one want to give up at times.. with the belief that far too many folks are so predisposed to hate .. and use "otherness" as the basis for doing so - and do it in a way to be able to self rationalize the superiority and rightesouness of doing so - and thus blinding the self to the pervasiveness of the impact (institutional, collective personal (eg communities), and individual) in order to protect the self-image (collective and individual) as "fair and just".

Worked with a group of teachers in a bay area district... who were forced to desegregate the "accelerated" middle school classes - as they were segregated by race and thus determining in 6th grade who would be taking college prep courses vs gen ed and voc ed (and thus more likely to drop out) during high school. So threatened by this change (oh my goodness... will have to learn how to teach heterogenous classes)... that some teachers requested using (scarce) professional development dollars to buy multiple copies of the newly released "Bell Curve" to justify their resistance to the detracking (as if that would change the court's ruling...) These teachers were so unaware that they didn't even "hear" themselves discussing in front of parents (of mixed races) how harmful it would be to mix "our" students (accelerated classes) with "those" students (reg classes; also mostly hispanic...) They used the excuses as if the harm would be to the regular track kids (re: hispanic) because they hadn't the background (earlier "accelerated courses") and would fall behind and thus be damaged (rather than figuring out how to build in the support for these students so that they would be successful. The whole experience was very, very disturbing to me as an educator.

[kentuck]

21. God did....he had a big pool of chocolate milk and....

by the time some people got there, it was all gone...those folks had to stay pale.... :)

[Karenina]

52. I remember that one...

they dabbled their hands and feet in it. ;-)

[Brewman_Jax]

25. Good point about privilege and preference

Tim Wise has a great article on this at www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15223

[Karenina]

50. Errraaaa...

Tim Wise GETS IT. He has written EXTENSIVELY on it and if you've never read him you simply must do so now.

[Brewman_Jax]

55. He's one of the few

I've read most of Tim's essays. Most are found at http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm. Some others who get it are: Mike Malloy, Molly Secours, Robert Jensen, Holly Sklar (tho' she's more on the economics) to name a few.

[jobycom]

28. Slavery was a big part of the definition of white

Not just American slavery.

Christians in Europe did not own many slaves during the Middle Ages (there wasn't much need for them, since the culture was poor), but they owned a few. There was a law against Christians being held as slaves, so as Christian Europe began growing and wanting more slaves, they had to find non-European sources. "Slave" is derived from "slav," because the Eastern European Slavs were discovered and turned into a steady supply of slaves. The Slavs were captured in battle, sent to southern France to be turned into eunichs (there were large snipping operations to do this) and then the survivors were sold to the Muslims in Spain. At some point, the word spread amongst the Slavs that if they converted to Christianity, they could no longer be slaves. This worked for a while, but the Christian slave traders began ignoring these conversions as insincere, and after a while, irrelevant. This is between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, mostly.

So even then the idea that freedom and the right to not be a slave should be based on color, or some such characteristic, rather than religion, began to form.

With the fifteenth century voyages of exploration and exploitation, Europeans discovered more cultures, and became even more aware that a lot of people looked very different. And many of these peoples weren't Christian, and weren't as economically advanced as Europeans. So the idea began to take shape of non-white equalling non-equal.

Columbus played a role in this. When he first landed in America, he began enslaving Indians for his plantations. But they would run off and hide, since they knew the land better. So Columbus began filling ships with Indians, going to the Canary Islands, and trading Indians with Africans, because Africans didn't know the land as well and could not escape as well. When African slaves began escaping anyway, and befriending the Indians, it further indoctrinated the idea of "us versus them" as equalling "white versus non-white."

None of the later "glorious" escapades of whites in the Americas, especially in the United States part of the Americas, helped to dispell that distinction.

As to why it continues, that's a harder question.

[SarahB]

29. Being Caucasian is a genetic mutation anyway

From most anthropological and archaeological evidence, all of our ancestors are of African decent. Tens of thousands of years back when humans began inhabiting parts of the globe with less sun, gradually, skin became lighter in order to absorb more vitamin D. We're an anomaly anyway. Racism is silly. Unfortunately, it's still very prevalent and the average white person just "doesn't get it".

[Bridget Burke]

41. White skin can be useful in an ice age, but when the ice retreats

--Skin cancer becomes a big risk. I'm interested in my ancestors but am highly irritated by people who insist we must band together because we share a melanin deficiency--& that's about all we share.

How the Irish Became White is interesting but I'm eagerly awaiting publication of Bob Quinn's The Atlantean Irish: Ireland's Oriental & Maritime Heritage.

"It is a pragmatic elucidation of Irish identity using much the same sources and scholarship that have been available for the past 2000 years to scholars and writers. The thesis is refreshing in that it states that the Irish are not a homogenous fiction called 'celtic' but an energetic mongrel people inhabiting what for thousands of years has essentially been an island trading post. This brings them at least as close to the Arabs and Berbers as they are to so-called 'Celts' or 'Aryans'.

"ATLANTEAN can be viewed as an anti-racist polemic but because the first edition was printed over 16 years ago - before Ireland became an uneasily cosmopolitan society - it is much more than that.

"The basic principle is that the sea does not divide peoples - it unites all countries and all races.

"The project began innocently enough when, twenty years ago, an Irish film maker, Bob Quinn, set out to show that the singing style of his neighbours in Gaelic-speaking Conamara in the West of Ireland was much more than a debased and incomprehensible version of ballad-singing - which was the attitude of anglophones. He showed how similar it was to North African and Afro-Asian singing and daringly went on to draw historic, religious, artistic, archaeological and linguistic similarities with Hamito-Semitic cultures."

The first edition is $98 at Alibiris--let's hope the new one is available soon.

www.conamara.org/writing.htm#

[RafterMan]

130. A genetic mutation?

So is being human.

[Terran]

32. Thanks for posting this, noiretblu

I've been involved in a great many discussions of race at DU, and one of the prevalent ideas is that individuals, including those expressing themselves here, bear no responsibility or role in racism as a cultural phenomenon in the US. The idea of a collective responsibility, regardless of whether one's ancestors owned slaves or were even here in 1865, is difficult for many people to accept.

I look forward to discussing this further. Thanks again,
Dirk

[noiretextatique]

125. thanks for your contributions, dirk

i know of what you speak, hence my repeated efforts to elevate the discourse on the subject here.
i will be posting more on this subject...call it my mission. i look forward to your always thoughtful and enlightening contributions, dirk.

[Tomee450]

42. Thanks

for starting this greatly needed discussion.

[ulysses]

77. Utah Phillips talks about the same thing

in terms of true pacifism and going into the world without the weapons of priviledge conferred by gender and skin color. It's a true point, but I wonder how many of us even begin to know how to address it in any real way. I don't think I do.

Hope this sparks that discussion, Karen.

[Dems Will Win]

80. Wasn't it Martin Mull? The History of White People?

[Bridget Burke]

87. I seem to remember The Firesign Theatre .....

Doing a bit about that topic. Lost in the fog....

Time to shell out for those CD's.

[msmcghee]

93. I am white & genetically male but I can't be president . .

. . because I am an atheist.

In fact, a black female Christian would probably beat me in a race - other qualifications being equal - education, experience, etc. She'd at least get 99% of the black vote.

Not that either one of us would stand a snowball's chance in hell.

[noiretextatique]

96. neither of you would stand a snowball's chance in hell

but, i'd gladly vote for an atheist :thumbsup:

[msmcghee]

99. Thanks norietblu . .

. . you and my Mom. Oh yeah, she died.

O8)

[noiretextatique]

117. so sorry

about your mom, mcmcghee. O8)

[9215]

95. They weren't invented........

they evolved to adapt to colder, less sunny climes.

When they get a chance they like to get some color with sun-tan oil. :evilgrin:

[msmcghee]

97. The opposite side of the identity coin . .

. . is otherness.

We belong to and establish identity in many different groups as we go through life. Some of those we inherit, like gender, sexual orientation, skin color, height. Others we are put into by our parents or the state like schools or the army. Others we join voluntarily - often to establish our identity to that group - to belong to that class of people.

Each one of those groups recognize the otherness in persons who do not belong. Sociologists have done a lot of studies about what that means. But people naturally feel protective toward members of their own group and mistrustful or defensive about others.

In huge societies like ours, it takes enlightened education from an early age, continuously reinforced, to develop adults who may belong to dozens of different groups from their neighbors, yet who can live with each other peacefully and without bigotry.

[bobbyboucher]

101. It's all right, cause it's all white.

-Chris Rock

[greendeerslayer]

103. whiteness...

....is an invention of colonial america. Check out newabolition.org for more info, or any of Roediger's excellent books. Or 'How The Irish Became White,' by Noel Ignatiev, or 'The Invention of Whiteness, vol.1&2," by Theodore Allen

[mitchum]

108. Yacub- a "big-head scientist" did...

according to conman Elijah Muhammad, Calypso Louie, and their poor deluded fools

[noiretextatique]

111. funny...they weren't mentioned

in the article :eyes:

[mitchum]

118. What, no "dropping science" in the article?

Once again, the truth is suppressed :)

[noiretextatique]

120. LOL...i suppose so

:hi:

[notimetoloose]

112. Not bothering to read

This is the most ridiculous s*it to me...sorry for you that swear without end...but, growing up in California...I had not ONE RACIST BONE in my body. Never felt a need, didn't understand or even THINK about it.
I feel so foisted upon these days with race issues, gay issues, reparations and the like...in the famed words of Rodney King (oh my gawd) "Can't we all just get along?"..
In that light, I have different thoughts...all the time. I just desire discourse and rational thought.

[noiretextatique]

113. then why don't you offer some discourse and rational thought?

vs. personalizing the subject (see the article for a discussion of this type of personalization).
i grew up in california too...in the model city of compton, ca...a part of the south central los angeles area where blacks could purchase property in the 1950's...i think this might have had something to do with segregation, which was the custom at the time. my uncle visiting from texas commented that he had never heard the "n" word as much in texas as he did when visiting his daugther in orange county, in the 80's. :shrug: of course we can get along...but must it be on your terms? what do you suggest gay and other people do, so you won't feel so put upon? i guess you can always just not bother to read, but perhaps you should try...without feeling put upon. your choice...

[Terran]

131. Why is it that so many people think

that there's no racism in California? I grew up there and lived there until I was 34. California is better than many places, but there is still plenty of racism there. What do you think caused the Rodney King riots? Not to mention the Watts riot.

[rumguy]

126. I didn't read the article

[noiretextatique]

127. thanks for the confirmation

those of you who feel the need to post your refusal to read (a really strange thing to do, btw) are the ones who need to read it most.

[rumguy]

128. the new racism

The tradition of `turkey pardoning' in the U.S. is a wonderful allegory for New Racism. Every year since 1947, the National Turkey Federation presents the U.S. President with a turkey for Thanksgiving. Every year, in a show of ceremonial magnanimity, the President spares that particular bird (and eats another one). After receiving the presidential pardon, the Chosen One is sent to Frying Pan Park in Virginia to live out its natural life. The rest of the 50 million turkeys raised for Thanksgiving are slaughtered and eaten on Thanksgiving Day. ConAgra Foods, the company that has won the Presidential Turkey contract, says it trains the lucky birds to be sociable, to interact with dignitaries, school children and the press. (Soon they'll even speak English!)

That's how New Racism in the corporate era works. A few carefully bred turkeys — the local elites of various countries, a community of wealthy immigrants, investment bankers, the occasional Colin Powell, or Condoleezza Rice, some singers, some writers (like myself) — are given absolution and a pass to Frying Pan Park. The remaining millions lose their jobs, are evicted from their homes, have their water and electricity connections cut, and die of AIDS. Basically they're for the pot. But the Fortunate Fowls in Frying Pan Park are doing fine. Some of them even work for the IMF and the WTO — so who can accuse those organisations of being anti-turkey? Some serve as board members on the Turkey Choosing Committee — so who can say that turkeys are against Thanksgiving? They participate in it! Who can say the poor are anti-corporate globalisation? There's a stampede to get into Frying Pan Park. So what if most perish on the way?

http://aroy.miena.com/

[Solly Mack]

129. I started reading the thread from the other day and thought

"wow!..someone actually touched upon 'white guilt'"

So I immediately left the thread before it turned into the "not me" mantra.

Funny me, I thought it was understood that just by being "white", people knew they held an advantage in a society that built it's entire culture around all things "white"...that being said:

yes, "whiteness" is an invention..a well cultivated one for centuries upon centuries. It's so ingrained and seemingly a part of everyday life that if you're white you often times can't even see it. America's society is geared toward whiteness..so throughout the day, unless you're just thrust into a situation that smacks of blatant racism, the whole concept of white privilege can elude you.

How many people stand in line at a bank (or grocers, doctors, etc) and wonder( or even notice) if the teller changes his/her smile and tone of voice as each customer comes forth...based solely on the teller's view of skin color? If the teller is "white" and the customer is as well..does it even cross either person's mind? Most likely not...and it's not just because one expects the teller to be polite to all people.

The very benefit of having white skin in a country that prizes white skin isn't just seen in the obvious acts of racism ...but in the ordinary day to day as well...the banal...tiny small ways that do more to further ingrain the concept of white makes right.

People see me and they see white skin..so they "see" me one way...then they see my grandmother's picture and they see black skin... then they "see" me differently. They even act differently toward me. Suddenly, I'm not "one of them" anymore. So the dynamics between us have changed...and why? I'm still human. I'm still the same person I was before they saw my grandmother's picture....the only thing that has changed is their perception of me. My "whiteness" has now been called into question...and everything that "whiteness" means to them.

The reactions vary depending on the leanings of the person. Some people may tell me how it doesn't make a difference.. (oh yeah? then why even comment on it?) My personal favorite are those people who react by seeming to like me more..as if somehow my stock went up because my whiteness quotient went down. (nothing like being a novelty)



oh and..people do understand that by saying "whiteness", it's not about the actual skin color, so much as the meaning placed and value given on/to the color of the skin, right? right? right? ...sigh...

Cause I can't resist: :)

... I don't happen to agree that all people are racists...I do think all people have prejudices...prejudice is ignorance and can be cured...racism is the ignorance of prejudice festered into hate and needs more to "cure" it than educating yourself about another as well as yourself...racism is marked by willful ignorance nurtured by hate.

[noiretextatique]

132. thanks, solly

and i agree with you: i don't believe all people are racist or that racism is "natural." i only concede that everybody CAN BE racist, but i do not believe that everyone IS racist. i don't believe that all people who benefit from the social contruct of "whiteness" are racist either.
and unfortunately, i don't think it is understood, and certainly not accepted.

i posted this article because it not only touched on "white guilt" (and did so in a way that i agree with wholeheartedly, i.e., guilt is basically self-serving), and it speaks to the issue of personalization, which as you can see from some of the responses here and in the other thread (and others like it) is a typical reaction to the subject of race.

my family history is just the opposite of yours.
when i walked in downtown ft.worth with my grandmother in the 60's, folks glared at us in a way i will never forget. whatever "whiteness" she may have been afforded evaporated the moment they saw her black grandchildren :D

most enlightening, as always...thank you for sharing :hi:

[Solly Mack]

133. I must confess to once

having used my heritage to detract a man's attention. He was the pesky tenacious sort.....couldn't take "No" or "Go Away" very well.

He was also very much against "the races intermingling"..so I showed him my grandmother's picture one day and ZAP!...he never bothered me again!

You're right..people aren't necessarily racists simply because they have "white" skin and live in a society that gives them an advantage for it. After all, you can't help being born white (hehehe) ahem..


and guilt is basically self-serving. Guilt can also blind you...and prevent a person from taking a real hard look at themselves and how their actions, no matter how well intentioned, might actually seem to others.

[noiretextatique]

139. ROFL...hehehe

that picture came in handy, and i think you grandmother would approve :7

bingo about guilt...it's like the opposite of responsiblity, imho. and of course, unless we all take responsibility...it remains "their" problem.
peace :hi:

[Karenina]

141. GO SOLLY!!!

In spite of the rampant miscegenation that has been a part of America for ALL OF ITS SHORT LIFE, so many simply REFUSE to "get it." RACE is an artificial POWER construct.

When one grows up in a heterogeneous environment, one groks early that being a Mensch oder Arschloch has little to do with physical characteristics or woher Mann kommt...

[Cleita]

134. Thanks for posting this Noiretblu.

Great article.

[carolinayellowdog]

136. White privilege: microcosm and macrocosm

Dear Noiretblu,

Thanks for posting this. I missed my chance to participate sooner, being offline yesterday. The article you excerpted inspires some related ideas and feelings, not about American society specifically but about white privilege in various contexts. One insidious aspect of whiteness is its invisibility to its beneficiaries. As an American I was better able to perceive it clearly in other societies where certain contrasts were startling. Mexico, for example, is a mestizo society with a white fantasy image of itself. Everyone I saw on Mexican TV seemed to be in the whitest 10% of the population; explicit pride in pre-Columbian culture is combined with implicit shame at the brown skins of most of the people. India is a more extreme case, with light-skinned northerners justifying their domination of dark southerners with a quasi-religious myth about Aryan superiority. Its embrace of a Kashmiri Brahmin dynasty was a 20th century symptom of white privilege, Indian style. Italy is another case of rich white north looking down on poor brown south; in each case the national color psychology is a reflection of the global north-south divide. So the issue of white privilege is clearly something that transcends the specifics of US history. Are there any counterexamples? Maybe the Ainu in Japan would count, but I can think of no other possibilities. White privilege also pervades microcosmic power relations within “races”; African-American society has experienced a long internal struggle against color prejudice, and darker southern European immigrants have faced more prejudice in the US that their fairer northern European counterparts. What is going on with all this? It seems to require explanations that are social psychological, not just historical.

Even within families this factor can be observed. For a personal example, my father’s second marriage to an African-American woman makes my own family biracial. One of my two half-sisters married a black man, the other a white man, which reflects a slight difference in the whiteness/blackness of their physical appearance. The one who married a white has two daughters; my nieces have little difference in skin color but the younger is a redhead and the older has black hair. My sister told me that the older girl complained to her, when she was 7 and her sister 4, “I’m black and she’s white”—and made it clear that she already felt disadvantaged by what she perceived as racial difference. Considering the love showered on these girls by their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, my sister was shocked that her older daughter already felt the weight of relative blackness as a social burden. Which conveyed to me that no matter how much conscious effort a family or schools put into encouraging self-esteem in children, the children are constantly bombarded with subliminal messages of white privilege. That this could feed feelings of sibling rivalry at such a young age is a bitter testimony to the inescapability of the phenomenon.

CYD

[noiretextatique]

138. dear CYD: thanks for sharing your story

*sigh* your niece's story is just heartbreaking. but a loving family can do wonders...it's really the most important psychic protection and grounding a child can have.

as to the value of "whiteness" in african-american (and other) communities, i could *literally* write a book about this, and i know many books have been written about it.

i was really fortunate in having a family that spanned the color spectrum...and didn't seem to have a lot of hang-ups about skin color...some, but not as much as other folks i knew.
from notions of "good hair" vs. "bad hair" to repeated admonishments to stay out of the sun so as not to get "too black"..."whiteness" was communicated (and not so subtly) as better than.
people used to tell me that i was so pretty...even though i was so dark.
or, that i was pretty, in spite of my darkness :eyes:
i had a pretty good self-image because of my family's sanity on the issue, but i always noticed these comments...and they did make me feel...well, weird.
when i took an "inner child journey" class at my church, i can't BEGIN to tell you how many people carried deep pain about the way they looked...either "too light" or "too dark." some of the stories i heard were just heartbreaking. i am convinced that african-americans have a lot of healing work to do around these issues, in fact, i think it's perhaps the most important "race" work that we need to do.
perhaps i will post more on this topic later.

i spent some time in italy in college, so i am very aware of the north/south rift. and i really appreciate your discussion of issues in other cultures/communities...it helps to see the bigger picture. sometimes people do this to make excuses...as in, everybody does it, but i prefer your method of connecting the dots :hi:

[AspenRose]

137. Anyone here seen the movie "The Human Stain?"

Anthony Hopkins...haven't had the fortune to see it but I think it touches on this particular topic. (Would be interested in hearing from some of you who've seen it.) I think he plays a professor who is "passing" for white and is accused of making a racist remark to a student (something he didn't mean to do). I've heard it delves into many issues seen on this thread.

[Logansquare]

140. The story was inspired by the life of critic Anatole Broyard

Phillip Roth knew him well. Broyard "passed" for years, refusing to acknowledge his African heritage to even close friends. His picture (from the Beat era):

[texastoast]

142. Wasn't it black people?

The last I heard, the theory is that Africa is the cradle of humanity. Folks migrated from there and evolved according environment. So (much to my father-in-law's chagrin), we are all descended from Africans. :7