Can We Learn From This?
There’s been an interesting evolution in the DL comment section. I wanted to give my take on it.
Whenever the subjects of race, women’s issues, religion (mostly concerning Muslims), LGBT, etc. come up and white privilege is pointed out we hear white people quickly saying “not all white people” and then sharing their reasons as to why they are the exceptions to whatever is being discussed. This derails the conversation, moving it away from whatever social issue is being discussed and putting the focus on white people’s concerns. I have lost count on the number of posts on DL where this has happened, and I’d like to figure out how we can stop doing this.
I get that some progressive white people aren’t happy with this turn of events. What I also get is this: Yes, all white people. Please notice the word “all”. I am including myself. I am a work in progress on these issues. I have learned a lot, mostly by listening to non-white, non-straight, non-Christian, non-male people, but I have a long way to go. It’s a learning process, mainly because I actually have to learn about experiences I not only never had to face, but never even knew existed. So yeah, I’m kinda big on the listening and learning before speaking technique.
But here’s what I noticed. White people are getting upset at being lumped into a group. I hear that we don’t know their personal experiences or discount their feelings or silence their voices or judge them not as individuals, and I’m beginning to see this outcry as an opportunity to learn something.
If we (white people) are upset/annoyed/exasperated/angry/defensive whenever white people, or white men, are called out as a group then, perhaps, we should ask ourselves how we would handle this situation if we had to deal with it every single day in every single aspect of our lives? Because we really aren’t handling this well given the comments here and elsewhere. We (general “we”) are asking for consideration that we don’t afford to other groups.
If we feel unfairly judged in these discussions on social issues because of our race, surely we can extend that feeling to other groups and understand why people who aren’t white are upset/annoyed/exasperated/angry/defensive with the very same behavior that makes us upset, annoyed, exasperated, angry and defensive? See how that could work?
No, we white people will never personally “get” the black and brown experience, being Muslim, LGBT, or a woman (if you’re a man), but we should be able to take our feelings of being unfairly judged as a monolithic group and afford the same consideration to other groups. Believe it, or not, we are not experts on everything.
“Who” isn’t handling it well?
Remember, “punching up” is considered totally acceptable. White men, having kept themselves at the top (at least in the Northern/Western Hemisphere) will always be the ones “getting punched to”, and will always be looked at as “punching down”, which is not considered acceptable.
I’d say it is only recently that white men are being shifted from their place of dominance in culture and it’s upsetting to them. The complaints are a sign of progress. Just look at the wording in this post! I’m saying “them”, because I’m shamelessly using my Judaism to remove myself from the Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of “white”. Don’t lump me in with Aryans.
<* some snark.
“Who” isn’t handling it well?”
Trump comes to mind as do his supporters.
But it isn’t only Trump and his supporters. It’s us.
It’s us when we:
*turn a post on consent, #yesallwomen, Elliot Rodger into men’s concerns
*turn a post on an apology for slavery into white people not being allowed to talk or trotting out one black guy as an example for all black people should handle a situation
*relegate social issues as not really important
*calling other people’s concerns micro-aggressions, but not seeing how what we complain about (‘splaining, we’re different from those other white people, etc.) are exactly the same thing.
I’m not trying to start a fight. I’m hoping we can actually address the issue, and I thought pointing out our defensiveness might be a good way to understand other people’s defensiveness.
This sort of stuff derails the conversation by refocusing the discussion on white people’s concerns. Puck’s first comment seems to be asking me to say, “Not you, puck.” Which misses the point of what I’ve written.
Just for clarification, not for me… for others… is THIS post about white people’s concerns, or is it about why white people feel the need to share their concerns? It seems like, from the OP, it could be a chance to “whitesplain” without repercussion (and when I say “repercussion”, I mean “a reasonable response to someone who doesn’t really get it)
It’s about white people applying what upsets them/makes them feel defensive to other people in the hope that we can understand and relate better with other people’s concerns.
then you summed it up in the post. No one likes being lumped together. It’s some people’s inability to apply that outwardly…. but I doubt there are many people like that here.
Here’s a thing. There are plenty of men and white people who consider sexism and/or racism a horrible thing. duh, right? The problem is, those people would consider being called… or viewed as.. a racist or sexist, unacceptable. I, for example, view racists and misogynists very poorly. I try not fall into societal traps and verbiage that would make me appear to be one of… those people…. BUT I love inappropriate and shocking humor. that’s my cross to bare.
So when, for example, a human who identifies as, and lives his life as male, gives what they consider to be an honest answer/explanation/response, and the immediate reaction is “stop mansplaining you oppressive man”, you’re going to put that person on the defensive. You don’t know them, you don’t know their upbringing…. Hell, they could have been raised by a single mother who has some backwards-ass ideas on society. That dude is giving what he believes to be a balanced and informed opinion and suddenly, someone claiming to be a woman on an anonymous blog just compared him to Trump. Yes, I know, I know, that is a really far-flung scenario. Much of the time, the anonymous man-claimer (nice, huh?) is some sad, neck-beard who isn’t even as much of a sexist as his online-persona, and they are just looking for a fight.
But I’ve seen it here plenty of times. A “question” or topic is posed, one of the “white men” who comment here says something, and while I’ve seen plenty of answers that could be considered “blunt” or even “tone deaf”, they are reacted to as if the commenter suggested we bring back foot-binding and slavery. It’s insane. The need for a fight and to prove argumentative dominance DESTROYS discourse and puts everyone on the defensive.
An old schoolmate of mine, very much “feeling the Bern” wrote a lengthy post on his facebook page rewriting his decades long impression of Madeline Albright after she suggested women should prioritize electing women. My response was that, “I was always sad when educated white men had hurt feelings.”
He then wrote an even LONGER post, explaining that, essentially, “some of his best friends were women” and complaining that I “called him names.” …those names being, of course, “educated white man” which was as inoffensive a way I could find to describe his life experience, short of saying “biped.”
Yes. Definitely seeing pushback.
We are no longer talking about issues, but talking about talking about issues. Too meta for me.
Brooke – Serious question. Obviously not having read exactly what your old schoolmate had originally written, why did you respond the way you did? Were you offended that he felt disappointment with Albright’s recent statements or were you offended that he wrote about his disappointment because he’s a man?
Again, I can’t comment on exactly what he wrote, but your response was terse and dismissive and the only reason you gave was that he was a white guy. Why did you feel the need to “describe his life experience” in the first instance? Did he simply say that he respected Albright before but is now disappointed? Why is he not entitled to state this?
This is what I’m talking about when I say that raising the issues of identity straightaway is not productive. It’s like a defensive, kneejerk reaction and I can’t figure out for what purpose. He wrote about his feeling toward the ex Sec of State but you felt that the primary response was to dismiss what he wrote as irrelevant because of your idea of his life experience.
I don’t see how we can continue cultural, social or political discourse in this way. So, yeah, I agree with Puck in a sense. It’s not what you know or what your argument is based on. It’s first of all about identity. In my view this is very dangerous ground.
Without a whole lot of context, I may not be able to explain this well, but I’ll try.
His complaint about Albright’s remark was that it wasn’t addressed to him. He feels, almost instinctively, that a person with her background SHOULD see his vote as the most, or the only, critical issue in any discussion. This hurt his feelings. He said so.
Because she hurt his feelings, he then went on an Internet hunt for reasons her opinion wasn’t valid…because, if he didn’t respect her, his feelings would be less hurt. He needed to discredit her, her history, her accomplishments, (and this brings in identity, )so that her neglect of him wouldn’t be a loss. IF she wasn’t a ground-breaking person of exceptional accomplishment, it woudn’t matter that she didn’t chose him as her audience.
So I responded to the problem as he presented it, but not as he perceived it.
He had as an option to say, for example, “Madeline Albright might see her sex as a critical component of Hilary’s candidacy, but I think her policies are more problematic.” Or he could say, “while I respect that Ms Albright’s concern comes from her lived experience, I think it’s dated.”
What he did, instead, was say, in effect, “that bitch isn’t talking to me. How dare she?” It’s the kind of sour grapes many women experience when they reject men’s advances…they’re categorized as bitches, or frigid, or too fat, or dykes, or otherwise unworthy. It’s an artifact of his experience as a privileged man.
But he doesn’t see it that way. He sees his hurt feelings as being exactly the same as systemic discrimination, and THAT, in my opinion, is how discussions about privilege break down…not being called on it.
Thanks for the reply. In that context I take your point.
I personally get uncomfortable when I feel like I am pegged based on a partial aspect of me – white, female, heterosexual, etc.. I always have to step back and assess my reaction because sometimes I feel I am being lumped in with racist pigs. On this site specifically, it is sometimes hard to get beyond the name calling to have a rational discussion.
Sorry, puck, did I miss the comment where you were discussing the issue?
Brooke, it’s interesting how (sometimes) we don’t see how we come across or why it upsets/annoys people. I’ve been pretty much avoiding FB because there’s just too much of this sort of stuff. I heard this somewhere: I use to think I’d want mind reading as my superpower, but then I joined FB.
AQC, I’m sincerely sorry if you’ve been called names here. I’ve never been really comfortable with name calling, and I really don’t like the way we as a society group people – women’s issues, black issues, gay issues, etc.. These are issues, period. No need for a modifier. I think that’s part of the problem and maybe, since we’re seeing white used as a modifier and how it’s not going over so well things could change?
Whitey back to Europe now!
George Lakoff, with whom I share few political views, but who I consider the foremost modern expert on the “Framing” of ideas (perhaps–aside to Dana Garrett–the next generation’s Noam Chomsky) consistently makes the point that it is the contextual frame rather than the actual content that pushes people toward or pulls them away from your position.
In this particular case (or cases), for white people in America–especially white males, and especially those toward the middle and lower ends of the economic spectrum–it is the frame that is all important. We live in a socio-political culture wherein the rules and social norms were crafted by white male leaders in large part to maintain political hegemony for themselves. That’s been unraveling for about 200 years now, and many white political leaders have been fighting an increasingly desperate rearguard action to maintain their prerogatives. It becomes increasingly dicey because the “white male consensus” about the necessity or the morality of that hegemony has begun to splinter, as a larger and larger (but still small) percentage of white males have become accepting of the idea of giving up that hegemony in exchange for a more equitable and potentially better-functioning society.
So the defenders employ at least two strategies: (1) Co-opting minorities of minorities, as it were, to support the remnants of the hegemonic systems, like the Conrad parents found a few token Indians to support their continued use of the “Redskins” mascot. These folks tend to be used as clever window-dressing (hello Ben Carson, hell Alan West) to make the white facade look more … multicultural. But that’s actually the least important strategy.
(2) is more critical: never NEVER N.E.V.E.R. allow “white people” or “Europeans” to be framed as a separate group, which means that one must work strongly to prevent any other group from establishing a strong, positive identity that does not include white males. “Black lives matter” can’t be accepted; “All lives matter” is the white formulation that (tendentiously) insists, “We are all victims here together” when, demographically speaking, we aren’t. Women’s issues and feminism must always be paralleled to, be equivalent to, … men’s issues. We can’t discuss the issue of women and consent without making men’s worries about being blamed for rape the equivalent of women’s fears of being raped. It is a quite effective strategy to insulate yourself against having to listen to the voices of the people who have been systemically and structurally closed out of power for a long, long time.
The specific irony is that this predilection exists very strongly in a lot of self-defined “liberal” or “progressive” males, but it operates at such a profound level of cognitive dissonance that they jump through incredible intellectual hoops to rationalize it, and to express themselves as pained at the betrayal of those who portray them as the “gate keepers” for the hegemonic leadership (see Howard Zinn’s last chapter of “A People’s History of the United States).
Thanks, Steve. This is a very interesting theory. I think this line of thinking is on the correct track as far as putting this in some intellectually usable context. It’s fairly novel idea though so it needs some time.
As a potential counter point along these lines…
Last week Reihan Salam wrote an essay in Slate ostensibly about the rise of Trump. It references a forthcoming book called ‘Hillbilly Elegy’ with posits this idea that American whites could potentially be considered as disparate groups due to social-economic impacts to working class and poor white in places like Appalachia. So, while never separating/framing whites into groups is probably productive in theory, due to the conditions these people live under they may separate themselves. Hence Trump.
Anyway, it’s an interesting argument that is just beginning.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/i_can_t_hate_donald_trump_i_do_hate_the_republicans_who_ve_enabled_him.single.html
The pertinent bit:
“Many have been struck by the overwhelming whiteness of Trump’s campaign, not least the small number of self-identified ‘white nationalists’ who’ve rallied around his campaign. I would argue that the Trump coalition illustrates how whiteness as a category is so expansive as to be almost meaningless. The Scots-Irish or ‘American’ whites who see Trump as their champion are profoundly different from the metropolitan whites who dominate the upper echelons of U.S. society—so much so that the convention of lumping them together as ‘white’ detracts far more from our understanding of how they fit into our society than it adds to it. J.D. Vance, author of “Hillbilly Elegy”, a forthcoming book on the place of Appalachian whites in modern America, estimates that roughly one-quarter of whites belong to the Scots-Irish tribe that has embraced Trump. If we were to separate out these Americans as a race or ethnicity unto themselves, Vance writes, we would finds rates of poverty and substance abuse that would shock our national conscience. But we don’t generally collect detailed statistics on the Scots-Irish. We don’t have a clear sense of how their labor force participation or disability rates compare to those of other Americans, including other white Americans. And so their experiences and their collective traumas blend into whiteness, where they can be safely ignored. Whites are privileged, after all.”
(N.B. Both Salam and Vance are right leaning writers/intellectuals, Vance is a National Review writer, I believe. But in my opinion Salam, at least (because I’m more aware of his work), is not a crazy person.)
I do think that “American whites could potentially be considered as disparate groups”, but I’m not sure “poor white in places like Appalachia” want to see themselves that way. This group repeatedly votes against its self-interest. They are far more likely to blame their circumstances on blacks, Latinos and women then on the political party/economic system they vote for.
Sometimes it seems that their “whiteness” is the only advantage they see for themselves. Separating them from that group would, I think, not go over so well with them.
That said, I do think it’s a good idea to break “white” into more groups.
Thanks for the article, Dorian. Good stuff.
“Sometimes it seems that their “whiteness” is the only advantage they see for themselves.”
I think you are absolutely correct. I would add that it might even be more of a narrative that concludes with – I may not be this, but at least I’m not that!
Can you imagine having a conversation with poor white Appalachians about white privilege? It’s one thing to have that conversation with someone in your neighborhood, or here at DL, but as an exercise, mentally try to have that conversation with those whose circumstances (and choices), language, and life are decidedly different than yours.
As a member of an Appalachian family, I will tell you that they are definitely racist, but they would not describe it that way, they would describe it as more of natural state of affairs, where blacks and whites do not live together or associate with each other. They can do business, work together, shop in the same stores, etc. and there is no hate involved, it is just simply the way things are. That’s how they would describe it. My uncle, who feels the way I described, voted for Obama, partially because he was a Democrat, but also because he felt the GOP was ruining the country, but he wouldn’t sit down to have a beer with the man.
I also have family in Columbia, SC who are rabid racists, sons of the confederacy and all that (the epitome of the stereotype). They are not the same as the part of the family that lives in Appalachia, even though they came from there and the same side of the family.
My point is that the imprecise, stereotypical way in which we describe each other does a disservice to everyone and our nation regardless whether description is the implied all whites, all blacks, all liberals, all conservatives, all gays, all Christians, etc. Our language has the ability to be nuanced. We are intelligent and educated enough to be nuanced, yet we continually fail to speak and, especially, listen with nuance.
If someone says “whites are racist.” We mentally fill in the missing qualifier with the word “All.” Now the speaker of the sentence may have meant “Some” or “Many” or some other qualifier. But because of the lack of precision it is left to the listener to add the missing word. So whose at fault? The speaker for the lack of the precision? Or the listener for assuming the missing word is “All.” The answer is both are at fault. Effective communications requires both a transmitter and receiver using the same algorithm for encoding and decoding.
When the term “white privilege” is spoken, the implication is that all whites enjoy that privilege, but there are many whites who would be left wondering when their privileges are going to start because they haven’t seen any privilege yet.
There is a common meme on DL that a lot of groups vote against their own interests. Isn’t that sort of nannyish and/or paternalistic meme. Do you know what their interests are in Appalachia? How about the coal miners in Kentucky? Do you know what’s best for them or what they really want? Unless you walk a mile in their shoes, there is simply no way to fully comprehend what their self interests are.
I’m tired of being a white guy
I always thought the problem, simply put, was that while I agree that “all whites” don’t enjoy the same level privilege, all whites enjoy exclusion from the historical and continued disadvantages of black and brown people.
Unfortunately it’s very difficult to illustrate to a poor white person in say West Virginia or New Mexico that it actually could have been much, much worse. Very difficult argument to make.
One of the problems I see about a “not all whites” or “not all men” arguments is it’s self-absorption. OF COURSE not all whites or men actively degrade minorities. However, that’s rarely the argument that’s being made by minority activists. The argument is typically that the culture has to change, not that every white male is actively bigoted. The “not all X” argument ignores the apt cultural observation in favor of self-promotion.
“What about meeeee?!” the white man says. “You’re saying that white men need to change, but I don’t beat up gays. I don’t victimize women. I don’t use the n-word. You’re being unfair to me and I’m a great guy!”
It’s a bullshit non-argument that takes attention away from the observation that the culture needs to change, while implying that the poor white guy is already doing his part by not behaving like a fucking monster.
Thanks for that comment, Joe! It’s so true.
I keep trying to figure out why these discussions always go down these roads. Do white men really believe everyone sees all of them that way, and if they do is it because they’ve never really been treated as a monolithic group? I know other minority groups are use to this behavior of being lumped together – the women’s vote, the black vote, the Latino vote, etc.. It’s just frustrating to try and have these discussions of systemic problems while the discussion always seems to veer towards deflection.
I’m not even sure most white men realize they do this. I think most are appalled by the behavior pointed out and want to distance themselves from it. I get that, but it isn’t helpful in addressing the topic; in fact it’s one of the fastest ways to shut down the conversation.
Joe, Not sure if you ever read this piece from John Scalzi. It caused a huge uproar at the time. His follow ups (links in the original) are interesting, as well. The comment section is familiar.
Huh. That was one of the better explanations I’ve read. Very relatable for a giant nerd like me, and for the type of people who tend to drift towards the “mens rights” nonsense. Thank you for sharing it!
Maybe a lot of us don’t realize we do it, but it’s still a manipulation that gets the focus off of us, and it’s difficult to imagine that most guys don’t realize that. It’s like the first time a kid lies to get out of trouble. They don’t do it because they think it will work, they do it as a hail mary defense and they are ashamed and scared of punishment. Then, they learn, “Hey! That worked!” and they start doing it all the time.
It’s great seeing your name in the comment section, Joe
Thanks, Pandora!
FTR, I HATE being called “white”. Only in the US do we insist on that. Other than that, whatever changes to being humane I’m okay with. But let’s not exact the pound of present day flesh to make up for tainted hamburger served yesterday to strangers and a time foreign to all of us. Move forward, do better. And if you see someone not doing right, show them better, and THEN don’t stand for it, expose it etc…Otherwise, we just keep picking scabs off wounds…….