To Whom it May Concern: 'White Racism' as categorically stupid as 'Heterophobia'

[Political Heretic]

You're going to be hearing about white racism more and more and more and more. Don't get suckered into this ridiculous stupidity.

There will always be individuals who are prejudiced against people for strange reasons. Some will be prejudiced against white people. There's probably even some people somewhere in this work who are prejudiced against straight people.

But what people who start talking about "white racism" don't get is that isn't not enough to find isolated pockets of individual strange prejudice. Discrimination against whites has never been and will never be a social or historical phenomenon at a cultural, political and institutional level. Thus all discussion of "white racism" as a "phenomenon" is bunk and ridiculous. An individual can be prejudiced and maybe you could use the term racist with a small "r" though I think that's unnecessarily confusing. But capital "R" Racism as a political, cultural and institutional reality does not exist and has never existed for white persons in America. White persons still dominate all political and social institutions.

Think about how stupid someone would sound trying to talk about the prevasive social problem of "heterophobia" and remember that it sounds just a stupid to talk about "white racism."

Again.... just because you can find a select example of some individual being biased against someone for their white skin will never ever be the same at as historical, institutional, cultural climate of social racism pervasive through society.

[avaistheone1]

1. It is isn't stupid if it happens to you.

Maybe it isn't widespread. I really don't know. Color bias and hatred is ugly and unacceptable no matter who it is directed at - no matter if you are black, yellow, brown, white or purple.

It is unacceptable if it even happens to a just a single person.

[Political Heretic]

19. Sure it is.

Because it doesn't happen to you.

That's my point. Select instances of discrimination or bigotry are not the same thing as systemic, institutional racism.

It doesn't make it more or less acceptable. It just makes it different.

[Lint Head]

2. Bigoted people have bigoted ideas.

:dem:

[LaydeeBug]

21. Preach! ...and bigoted people can be any color of the human race, as can the color they hate..

[marimour]

3. same thing with reverse racism (it doesnt exist)

I agree if you see Racism as just institutional racism. Whites have not and will likely never be subject to that in the US. There are prejudiced people of all races and most people just us the term racists for them.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marimour]

7. reverse racism = racism (they aren't 2 separate things)

Reverse racism is a charge that anti-affirmative action freeper types use to try to make themselves somehow equal victims. If a black person is "racist" against a white person, its not reverse racism its just racism.

[ZombieHorde]

9. Wouldn't reverse racism be tolerance?

[marimour]

15. yeah it would be

which is why I hate that Repubs co-opted the word.

[rch35]

44. thats not what reverse racism is, as i understand it anyways.

The way i have always used it termed around here in Cali is that it is when a person of one color (usually white) is unusually kind towards a person of another race solely because of the other persons skin color. They are so worried about being thought of as racist that they overdo it.

[marimour]

81. thats not the generally accepted definition

That may be a Cali term though, but reverse racism is usually used when talking about quotas or affirmative action policies. Whoever brings the suit usually claims that the quotas or policies are "reverse racism" as in racism against whites. Its a stupid term though.

[rch35]

83. i see. just wanted to clarify, see if it was just me or not.

Thanks!

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. There's no such thing as "reverse racism" because racism is all one thing.

If you think ones ethnic background (whatever that might be) confers genetic superiority, you're a racist.

edited to add: I read your subsequent post after I wrote this. I fully agree with you.

[loyalsister]

31. That term is awful!

"backward" racism implies that there is a correct form.
Aiming hate at inappropriate subjects as opposed to simply inapropriate ideas\actions\policies.

[texastoast]

5. Okay, I'm confused

If I'm white and biased against black, am I suffering from white racism or black racism?

[marimour]

8. lol. well if the guy is mixed then i guess its both.

[Terran]

26. The OP means institutional racism *against* whites when he says

"white racism". Not the best choice of words, IMO, but I totally agree with his main idea.

[marimour]

80. i think most people dont understand this thread

If they would look at my post about 4 posts down from the OP they would get that it is institutional racism the OP is talking about.

[ZombieHorde]

6. When my step father was dying in the hospital, he was treated poorly

because of his race (White). I don't remember what the nurses called it. 'Sucking up to whitey' or something like that.

Nobunaga Oda was legandary for killing Whites and Christians.

[marimour]

11. well

well there is more than one definition of racism. One definition is basically used almost interchageably with prejudiced.

The other one "a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others; discrimination" can only be imposed by whites on others because whites have been in control of government. In that case, blacks cannot be racist against whites because they have no power or means (control of government) by which to enforce those views (in america). I think thats the racism that the OP is talking about. In places like Jamaica or many African countries where blacks are in control, then it switches.

[avaistheone1]

12. I respectfully disagree.

There are pockets in this country where blacks control the levers of power in government. In those communities other racial groups not infrequently have a difficult time asserting their power.

So perhaps racism is a disease of power. Absolute power corrupts regardless of race.

[ZombieHorde]

14. Since there are two valid definitions of the word, 'racism',

using one of those definitions is not stupid, as the OP suggests. There is nothing wrong with using words properly.

[marimour]

17. i agree

I use the 1st definition frequently to describe people. When talking about institutional racism I specifically say institutional racism.

ETA: i dont call it white racism or black racism, just racism no matter who it comes from.

[LaydeeBug]

34. The "other" definition of racism? My God, you're full of shit.

You can take that blurb and interchange "woman" for "blacks" and "men for "whites". Now does that mean I can't be prejudiced against men?

That is a wafting load of bullshit and you know it.

[marimour]

79. so you obviously didnt comprehend my post

There are actual books written about it. It is actually an alternate definition of racism. Look it up before you blow something off just because you haven't been exposed to it. Its not surprising you haven't been exposed to these types of discussions b/c you may have not felt the need to delve into race related issues. In my college courses dealing with race, there were usually 1 or 2 white people max while the rest was filled with various minorities. If you actually take the time to look this up you will understand that i'm not saying that blacks cant be prejudiced against whites. Actually if you read my post you would notice that prejudice is a totally different thing from the type of institutional racism that I am talking about. Basically, some people say that racism= prejudice + power. (if you believe that then everything else is prejudice). Seriously take the time too look something up before calling bullshit just b/c you don't know about it. You may be surprised about the things you can learn.

[meow2u3]

13. Racism is racism...

...no matter who the racist is.

[PM Martin]

49. Correct!

[Joe the Revelator]

16. You can't pick and choose which groups you will and will not tolerate bigotry towards.

[avaistheone1]

18. Woohoo! Well said.

[Political Heretic]

20. Excellent. Since I'm not doing that, I guess we agree.

[Joe the Revelator]

23. Oh, but you are

[Two Americas]

42. no he isn't

You are arguing that reverse racism is a legitimate concept if you think that the OP is calling for persecution of straights and whites. Debate that. Support your position.

[Joe the Revelator]

53. My postion is supported by common sense

You can't say that you are a beacon of equality if you think its ok for anyone or group, even a single person, to discriminate against whites, straights or men based on their race, sexual preference or gender.

[Skip Intro]

57. Good Lord, I'm agreeing with Wolsh.

Guess the primaries are over, lol.

You are right on in this debate...

[Political Heretic]

61. Great. Since I don't think that, nor did I say that - at any point.

[Joe the Revelator]

68. I think your first post made your feelings quite clear

no need to walk it back now.

[Political Heretic]

76. There's no walking back needed for anyone who can read.

My post says nothing about condoning bigotry toward anyone. It says there's a big difference between institutional racial oppression and select instances of experienced bigotry. What white people do not experience is institutional oppression - historical, systemic or contemporary - based on their skin color.

All forms of bigotry should be opposed. But conflating the two very different experiences as equal or identical is a trap, most frequently used by racists, frankly, to trivialize real discussion of the continuing effects of institutional oppression towards persons of color inherent in our social structures today.

[Two Americas]

66. we all discriminate

We all discriminate all of the time, and it is not necessarily a bad thing. Can not a woman who is being abused by her husband discriminate and prefer to discuss it with a woman rather than a man? How would that harm or oppress men? Escaped slaves needed to discriminate and be much more cautious around whites. Did that harm whites or oppress them? Was that unfair to whites? Was the anger, fear, and resentment that Black slaves felt toward whites "reverse slavery?"

You are talking about people's personal preferences and feelings and ignoring power imbalances. Racism is a different subject, and if we leave power out of the discussion it is impossible to talk about racism at all.

Victims have every right to discriminate against their persecutors and abusers and choose to reject them and not associate with them. That is not "reverse persecution."

Prejudice and discrimination are an effect of racism, not a cause. First came the oppression and exploitation and enslavement, then came the negative stereotypes.



...

[Terran]

27. You missed the point entirely. n/t

[treestar]

22. The trouble is that racism only goes away when we are all individuals

judged on the content of our character.

Then it would not matter who was in the majority or whose ancestors were the victims of racism.

We have to be careful here, because we fall right into the RW claim we are always trying to be victims because we think that will gain us something. "My race has been victimized more than your race," can be unsymnpathetic if in spite of that, I'm doing better that you in life.

[Two Americas]

47. not the way it works

Leave improving human nature on an individual basis to religion. Politics is about changing social conditions. The goal of the political battle against bigotry is not to get people to like each other, it is to enact law that prevents them from harming others.

[NYC_SKP]

24. Actually, I'm a little heterophobic.

Extremely assertive heteros, mustachioed macho men, guys that go to strip clubs, bars, cheat on wives and brag about it, get into fights, all that stuff... they scare me. :fear:

[Vektor]

25. Agreed.

They don't so much scare me as sicken me to my very core. Kind of the same way a swarm of maggots feasting on a rotting deer carcass would sicken me.

Can't stand the sight, smell, or thought of it.

These oafs you talk about are, 100% of the time, suffering from crippling insecurity, social ineptness, and a grotesque overcompensation complex. You can see it from a mile away, and it will repel you instantly if you have even the merest hint of "creepdar".

:puke:

[BreweryYardRat]

28. Thank you.

I'm male, and I never understood the urge to act like a chest-beating Cro-Magnon. (One of my roommates does that sometimes. It's aggravating.)

[Vektor]

36. I don't understand it either...

But there is always some ulterior reason for it - they are always "making up" for something. Insecurity, poor social skills, bad manners all factor in, but I think the biggest issue they have is a closet case of self-loathing. In order to try to feel better about themselves, they disrespect everyone else.

Luckily, the "cro-magnon" is easy to spot (Usually red-faced and drunk, screaming 'Woo-hoo! nice tits!!!' at the top of his lungs while smashing a Pabst blue ribbon can on his forehead), so you can give them a wide berth should you encounter one. Also, they travel in pairs or groups, thus amplifying the effect.

[NYC_SKP]

45. They don't hang with women, they hang with other men....

...almost exclusively. They treat women like property. They love other men like themselves.

See where I'm headed?

I really believe that most gay-bashers are unawaredly afraid of their own attraction, the theory is not new.

[Vektor]

73. I think there is some truth to that...

But they are the ones that are both homophobic, and have tendencies at the same time. Therefore, the self loathing ensues...

[awoke_in_2003]

50. "they are always "making up" for something"

you left one little "thing" off your list :)

[Vektor]

72. Hahahaha!

Yes... I think you are absolutely right!

Likely, that is often the main issue, I suspect.

[awoke_in_2003]

74. Reminds me of my father...

one time a waitress told him "have a good one". He said "I have a good one, I just want a bigger one". I don't know who was more embarrassed, me or the waitress.

[Political Heretic]

64. Not sure what that has to do with hetero anything.

Macho men need not be straight. Neither guys going to strip clubs. Partners cheating on partners then bragging about it, also not exclusive to heterosexuals, nor getting into fights....

:shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Right. Straight white folk are the only ones that suck.

Go watch those tapes of Jeremiah Wright; the people in the audience were just being polite to him by agreeing so gleefully. There's no such thing as a gash-hating queen. Never was a lesbian the least bit annoyed by any male in a gender-related way. Koreans don't have any trouble with blacks, and even Spike Lee was making that up in "Do The Right Thing" because he knew that playing to a made-up stereotype would be good box office. Hispanic culture absolutely adores us here in L.A.; I can just feel it. There's no such thing as sneering at heteros in gay culture; the term "breeder" is one of the deepest respect.

Paul Mooney LOVES his pigment-challenged brothers and sisters. So does Louis Farrakhan. Sistah Soljah's met lots of white people who don't suck.

Assholiness is a cross-cultural affliction. What people TRULY need to understand is how really, really similar we all are, and that includes the crappy parts.

We all have our crosses to bear for shittiness of those who come from the same demographics as we do. Not admitting it leads to calls for a privileged status. Ignorance of it seems hard to believe. Outrage at it belies an expectation to be granted priveleged status.

[bertman]

38. PurityofEssence, your post is exactly right. Thank you.

[Two Americas]

43. this has nothing to do with who "sucks"

Your argument defends and promotes bigotry and persecution by equating the mistreatment of a group of people by claiming that resistance and reaction to that mistreatment is somehow equal to the mistreatment itself.

This argument, by the way, was used at one time to defend slavery. "The slaves hate the masters just as much as the masters hate the slaves, so I guess it is all equal and people should not make slaves into saints and masters into the evil ones."

Politics is not about who likes whom, or who doesn't, it is about power - who has it and who does not. When people are denied power based on race, gender or sexual orientation, that is a social problem that we use politics to address, fight and overcome. That struggle is not invalidate because "some of them are not going about it the right way" nor because "some of them hate us as much as we hate them." In fact, seeing a "them" who presumably all feel and think and act the same way is the very essence of bigotry - judging the group by the individual and the individual by the group.

If we ignore power imbalances in these discussions, only then can we think that "these things go both ways." The systematic institutionalized abuse and enslavement of one group of people was not "equal" to the resentments, anger and resistance of those who were enslaved, and that is true today, as well. GLBTQ people are subjected to systematic institutionalized abuse and persecution and denial of equal rights and justice. Straight people are not. People of color are subjected to systematic institutionalized abuse and persecution and denial of equal rights and justice. White people are not.

The general public is now moving dramatically to the Left on these issues, and we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make great progress. Why, as the public moves to the Left, as they reject the religious right, as they reject Reganomics, are there now progressives and liberals who are trying to revive and restore the discredited and repudiated ideas of the religious right and the the extreme political right wing?

[PurityOfEssence]

51. I'm a big fan of causality

Such things simply exist. One of the sad things is how minority groups get at each others throats and further irritate the wound. The connotation to posts like the thread starter is that the downtrodden have some kind of monopoly on virtue.

I get around, and I'm not a kid; the spread of human qualities seems pretty even in this country, and to deny that they exist doesn't help a thing. White people have enjoyed great advantages, and they're seeing them go away, with many of them actively working to lower their privelege. This is all happening at a time when the United States itself is going through an analogous reorientation to the rest of the world. As things go up in general, our standard of living is by definition going down.

For the large part--especially among Democrats--people are actively working against their short-term self-interest (it'll be better for all for everything to be equal, but most people are VERY short-sighted) and should be treated as allies. To make them also swallow the horse shit that they're morally inferior because only they are the only ones who are filthy racists is not constructive; it's some kind of smug retaliation. It's a victim mentality, and is an expression of selfishness.

If people want to promote the premise that white people are more racist than others and that they are the only ones to take some heat for it, those people should be called out as either self-indulgently oblivious, racists themselves or both. Reality is reality. The mitigations you cite are fair topics of conversation, and it is very understandable for someone of a downtrodden group to despise those of the group that keeps them down, but it's not a virtue and that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The problem is dealing with individuals as members of their group rather than as individuals.

Virtually everyone I've ever met has a few lingering whiffs of prejudice, and the ones who don't admit it are often some of the worst characters.

[Two Americas]

70. you are not talking about racism

You make some points about tactics and strategy for the political Left, but what you are talking about is not racism.

We cannot discuss racism without someone feeling put out that they have been - heaven forbid - "called a racist." That shuts down all discussion.

No one is saying that the victims of oppression are better human beings than those who benefit from or promote the oppression.

You are talking about who is and who is not a racist. Racism is not about personal qualities.

I can well understand why people might describe your arguments as arguments that support racism. That is not harming you or persecuting you. Could it be that it is having your arguments challenged that you resent?

I think that to be white in America is to "be" a racist, and I don't know why anyone would feel offended about that or resist it. Clearly, we are all part of the problem, we are all in this together, and we have all been raised in a racist culture and saturated with racist messages. But racism is not a matter of being, it is a matter of thinking, saying, and doing.

[Jennicut]

30. Everyone is cabable of hatred in some way

But I don't think I have to worry about being discriminated against as a young white woman in my early thirties. Maybe just the woman part.

[XemaSab]

32. You ever get your ass kicked for being white?

You ever go to a school where white people were 2% of the population?

You ever have groups of people act nasty to you because you're white?

I didn't think so.

[LaydeeBug]

35. as a matter of fact, I have.

How absolutely WRONG of you to suggest that only black people can experience those things. I grew up for a time in the Virgin Islands, where whites are the minority. You think the black population was "tolerant"?

I didn't think so.

On edit: to fix toleratn to tolerant.

[XemaSab]

55. Apparently I didn't phrase my post correctly

I have experienced this sort of prejudice firsthand as a while kid growing up in Oakland.

I was intending to challenge the OP.

[LaydeeBug]

59. Oh, I am sorry then. ;) nt

[Chulanowa]

41. I have

Actually, not so much because I was "white" as because I wasn't as brown as the majority population,... which by default made me "white". And out of a school of eight hundred there was myself and one white kid. So it was actually 0.25%. I got my ass kicked frequently until I learned how to kick ass back.

You didn't actually know there are plenty of places in the US where the "minority" is actually the majority, did you?

Didn't think so

[XemaSab]

54. I didn't know WHAT?

I'm from Oakland. There's a lot I know.

[Chulanowa]

58. Well, that's good

If you're so knowledgeable, perhaps you shouldn't make stupid assumptions like the one I responded to. Have a good night.

[Chovexani]

33. Excellent post

Too bad it will sail over the heads of the people who need to hear its message most (and I see it's already started to).

K&R.

[sniffa]

37. OTTGPYG

[NYC_SKP]

46. That's right, you tell em!

Huh?

[Two Americas]

39. excellent post

Thanks PH. Good work, and an important topic.

Paraphrasing Dr. King: "I don't care whether or not someone likes me, so long as they do not have the power to harm me."

I am stunned at how much traction the idiotic "reverse racism" arguments are getting among "progressives," as we can see on full display in all of its ugliness right here on this thread.

Only those from the dominant and powerful group, enjoying unexamined and assumed privilege, can see racism as a matter of which individuals like which other individuals, thereby stripping any consideration of power and abuse from the discussion. Only those who enjoy full rights and privileges can see it as reasonable and practical that the desperate needs of GLBTQ people as a nuisance and not a priority. This is power talking now, at the expense of principle.

"I like Black people, and I am not a racist, but some of them don't like me merely because I an white. That is as bad as racism against Blacks."

"I like gay people, and I support gay rights, but some of them seem to hare me because I an strength and are labeling me as a bigot. Hatred goes both ways."

If people can say that "hatred goes both ways," and that one is equal to the other, then they are arguing that there is no social problem, that it is merely a matter of our personal feelings. To deny that there is a social problem is to defend the way that things are now, and that means that bigotry and racism and homophobia cannot be challenged, cannot even be examined or discussed.

This has been very sad and frustrating to watch. As the Democrats are coming into power, too many here are now sidling up to power, using the arguments of those in power to beat down the rest of us, taking the authoritarian position on every issue, and reveling in their imagined association and identification with those in power even to the point of defending including bigotry in a misguide notion if "including people." The only ones being in included are those with power, and those without power or persecuted and abused are being attacked by their presumed allies and seen as the problem.

"We won! Get over it!" we heard from Bush supporters. Now we are hearing that from our supposed friends and allies.

Did you get a chance to see the Pew Research survey on this PH? As the general public moves to the Left and toward greater tolerance, liberals and progressives are moving the opposite direction. The public has overwhelmingly rejected and repudiated the religious right and Reaganomics, and Pew survey taken shortly before the election shows that. Yet liberals and progressives are moving to the right, as they now catch a whiff of power and start strutting an bullying and seeing themselves as "winners" and looking at the people, and those speaking out for the suffering and abused among us, with contempt and derision.

Majority now says "get religion out of politics"
Pew Research study
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x113168

[Starry Messenger]

40. Great post, TA.

I really hope you write a book someday. I think the concept of "privilege" as it is used in these discussions is often misunderstood by the casual reader. You have a good way of clarifying. :thumbsup:

[Political Heretic]

60. Thank you so much for getting it.

I was shocked, in my obvious naivety, at the silliness of so many of the responses.

But then, white privilege is a strong, covert force.

Did you get a chance to see the Pew Research survey on this PH? As the general public moves to the Left and toward greater tolerance, liberals and progressives are moving the opposite direction. The public has overwhelmingly rejected and repudiated the religious right and Reaganomics, and Pew survey taken shortly before the election shows that. Yet liberals and progressives are moving to the right, as they now catch a whiff of power and start strutting an bullying and seeing themselves as "winners" and looking at the people, and those speaking out for the suffering and abused among us, with contempt and derision.

Incidentally, this is exactly what happened (part of what happened) in the 1960s that marked the beginning of the collapse of the Great Society and the War on Poverty. Initially, there was broad liberal/progressive/democrat (whatever label you choose) support for the War on Poverty. Liberals liked the "idea" of empowering people in poverty. Until poor people began to take them seriously, and tack the design of Community Action Agencies and Programs (CAP / CAA) seriously. The got on the boards, they began to organize - and pretty soon Democratic Mayors of local cities were clamoring to Party insiders that their power was being coopted, they threatened to be less supportive of Democratic Congressional races and Presidential bids and as a result, a Democratic Congress passed revisions which made it impossible for ordinary citicizens to control the boards of CAPS -- they required that only three seats be filled by community members and the rest be filled by party representatives and people appointed by people in power.

The point of this story? Democrats are like any other group when it comes to power. They like the idea of helping others, but only as long as those "others" stay other. They like the idea of a group of people who will quietly take whatever help is offered them - they do not like the idea of people who become awakened and empowered to advocate for themselves and organize.

It's so fascinating to study the history of Johnson and the Great Society. It seems fairly clear that he sincerely had a dream of seriously tackling poverty, but it was a depersonalized issue to him. As long as power remained in its traditional places, he loved the idea of "giving" aid to a quiet anonymous mass of people who would take it and stay silent. When poor began to access new capacities for empowerment and began to enter into the political process as an actual political force.... it became a problem for all the traditional power brokers, and things began to unravel.

It's always best for those with power when those without it just stay asleep...

EDIT - also, TA can you link me to this study because I'm very interested in it.

[Two Americas]

62. thanks PH

The work you are doing recently is just excellent - can't say enough.

Very interesting story about the 60's and the War on Poverty.

Here is the study I referred to:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1361

"It's always best for those with power when those without it just stay asleep..."

By the way, I believe that is is always a good thing to get more people involved, and it is broader public involvement that those with entrenched power most fear, not any "ideology." That was what RFK did and also Dr. King. All things being equal, it is always a good thing when we get more people involved, and that has been Obama's greatest contribution to date, in my opinion.

[Political Heretic]

67. Oh yeah I DID read that study (the summary findings) I had just forgotten

Stuff keeps falling out of my brain hah....

[PM Martin]

48. Bigotry is NOT restricted to a single race, gender, religion,

ethnicity, etc...

[Political Heretic]

65. No kidding. I never said that.

Do people really read, ever?

[nini]

52. Don't confuse Racism with Discrimination

Anyone can be racist be they white, black, yellow, whatever.

To discriminate you must have some kind of power where you apply your racism, phobia etc.. against others.

They are NOT the same thing.

[Skip Intro]

56. Yes! nt

[Political Heretic]

63. One final attempt to clarify some of the confusion

Try to follow with me here....

If someone said "Heterophobia is the same as homophobia" - how would you feel about that?

I think that many people would first of all have trouble even taking the term "heterophobia" seriously. Heterosexuals are not getting tied to fence posts and beaten to death for being straight. They're not denied the right to marry. Their sexual orientation is not used as the butt of jokes or as a slur.

So I think a clam, objective person would want to say that, while it certainly is possible for a person to be bigoted against a straight person, we want to be careful that we don't conflate that experience with the systemic, institutional, culturally pervsive phenominon of homophobia. Homophobia is a term specifically because it is a pervasive cultural/social condition of power and privilege inequity based on prejudice. Heterosexuals, regardless of whether or not an individual person may be bigoted toward them based on their straightness, do not experience cultural/social conditions of power and privilege inequity because of their sexual orientation.

Okay?

Likewise, it is certainly true that a white person may experience bigotry and prejudice at the hands of an individual. That prejudice is unacceptable of course. It's not less acceptable because the target person is white, that much is obvious. However, institutional racism is different and has consequences that are more far reaching. A white person, due to the very nature of white privilege of American history and society and reguardless of whether or not an individual person may be bigoted toward them based on their skin color, do not experience cultural/social conditions of power and privilege inequity because of their race.

Thus the danger is to accept attempts to sort of "level the playing field" and act like persons of color do not experience specific hardships and specific institutional barriers because of their race, simply because some white person somewhere experienced the biogtry of some other person. Institutional racism is different than individiual instances of bigotry.

Some reminders about the reality of white privilege (and I live in Idaho and am white as the driven snow by the way):

Daily effects of white privilege

I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot count on most of these conditions.

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.

45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.

48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.

49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.

50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

[Fearless]

69. Feel better?

I hope so.

[debbierlus]

71. Uhm. No...That is simply not true. I was a victim of white racism and so was my husband.

Me, I got beaten to smithereens in eighth grade by a group of black youths who attacked me because I was white.

And, my husband had his teeth knocked out during the Rodney King riots simply because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
A white man walking down the wrong street.

This was racism against whites.

People are people and racism, sadly, transcends all lines.

[Political Heretic]

75. You need to re-read.

[BlooInBloo]

78. It won't help. People like that are *committed* to it.

[Two Americas]

82. sorry to hear that

You were assaulted. That is horrendous. That isn't racism, though. No doubt there are occasional assaults on white people that have racial overtones, and I am sorry that you and your husband were hurt. I don't think we can generalize from that, though.

I grew up in Detroit, went to integrated schools, and lived for decades in neighborhoods where most of the my neighbors were Black. I was never mistreated because I was white. While there were fights and trouble in school, I don't ever remember anyone being assaulted merely because they were white. My Black classmates and neighbors, however, were under relentless racially motivated pressures and harassment of various kinds. I was in the city in the summer of '67, and also when Dr. King was murdered, and there was lots of chaos and violence. The only people who hassled me, though, were the police.

I have performed in hundreds of small AA churches in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland and many other cities and towns. I never hesitate to go into Black neighborhoods. There are bad areas, regardless of who lives there, and you need to be smart, yes. In 40 years of working and living in AA communities as a white person, I have never been mistreated because I was white, and I have never feared a person because they were Black.

[BlooInBloo]

77. They get it just fine. They're simply lying.

They can't stand that history actually happened, and that to correct its unbalanced outcome, counter-balancing measures are required.

So they bitch and whine like racist little whiny ass titty babies about "reverse-racism" or "political correctness" or whatever cute name they come up with, specifically to maintain the results of America's racist history.

It also serves as a white unity rallying cry. One white guy moans "reverse racism!!!!" and then a bunch of other white guys commiserate and they all yell it in unison. It's really very touching.

[Catherine Vincent]

84. BlooInBloo, you're something else! :)

[BlooInBloo]

85. I get that a lot.

:P

On occasion it's even meant in a nice way.