THIS WEEK IN RACE THIS WEEK IN RACE: Beyond White Guilt: The Role of Allies in the Struggle for Racial Equality SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


Beyond White Guilt: The Role of Allies in the Struggle for Racial Equality

We do not normally take requests, but THIS WEEK, Ludovic Blain, formerly of Stop Dog Whistle Racism (and now with the Closing the Racial Wealth Gap Initiative), asked us to comment on "why white liberals are unable to grasp and take action to expose, challenge and provide alternatives to the racism spouted from the right." We think it is an important question and one that we may not have squarely addressed in this space over the past three years, so here we go.

First, it is important to be clear that we are limiting our discussion of what Blain referred to as "white liberals" to White folks who are progressive with respect to issues of race. Some of those folks may be politically conservative in other areas or would otherwise reject the label of "liberal" altogether. Still, we feel as if the root of the question is about Whites who 1) understand that there are significant problems with respect to racial inequality that are systemic and 2) are interested in seeing those problems addressed and eventually solved. There are many Whites, of course, who may be wonderful people in general, but are convinced that ending "racism" means getting folks to quit using the n-word or joining the Ku Klux Klan. These folks believe that we have progressed to the point where there is now equality among races in America and that the election of Barack Obama is further proof of such progress. We are not addressing those folks here; rather, we are addressing the role of what scholars refer to as "allies" in the ongoing struggle for racial equality.

Broadly speaking, allies are folks who have privilege in a given category but work alongside those who do not to bring about more equality. So an ally for LGBT rights would be heterosexual, for instance. Feminist men are allies. Able-bodied folks can be allies in the struggle to bring attention to and remedy discrimination against those with physical challenges. Whites are allies in the struggle for racial justice. (See Dr. John Raible's "Checklist for Allies Against Racism" for examples of what this might mean on a daily basis.)

It is important to remember that the word "privilege," when used in this context, does not mean absolute privilege. There are a lot of White folks, for example, who certainly could not be considered to be "privileged" because they are poor, were raised poor, had other disadvantages, etc. With respect to a similarly situated person of color, however, they are considered to "have privilege." In other words, having "privilege" means having an advantage, all other things being equal and is not the same as "being privileged." Like "racist," it refers to what we are, not who we are: "I am someone who has privilege, but I am not privileged; I am racist, but I am not a racist." Failing to appropriately define the concept invariably results in an unraveling of its meaning; after all, only a very small fraction of the population would be considered to be "privileged" in the broadest sense of the word (someone always has it better). Most of us have some degree of privilege in one context or another.

Allies are important to social movements, but they find themselves in a complicated position in a number of ways. They are at once needed because they have disproportionate (though almost never absolute) access to the power structure that, by definition, those who are out of the privileged group do not have. On the other hand, as members of the privileged group, they must always be aware that no matter how well intended, they do not have the lived experience of someone who is in a disadvantaged group, and exerting their perspective can be (or can be perceived as) a further act of oppression, symbolic of the larger issue. In this sense, there is a very real irony present in these relationships.

We will use ourselves as an example. Charlton has the experience of being a Black man in America, which is something Stephen can seek to understand, but can never fully comprehend. Stephen can only know what is is like to be a person of color through the lived experiences of persons of color. One of the ways that this is illustrated is when he speaks publicly about racism. In fact, we often engage audience members in discussion about this issue during the Q&A portion of our public lectures, so we can relate what those folks have shared with us.

There is an inherent sense of legitimacy ascribed to Stephen from White audience members because he is perceived to not have a personal agenda in the matter. That is, if he is successful, White supremacy -- from which he has benefited and continues to benefit in ways that are largely unknowable -- will be dismantled, and he will therefore have less of an advantage. When Charlton speaks about the same issues, he is certainly viewed with a sense of legitimacy with respect to his understanding of how racism works, but there is always a sense amongst White audience members that he is less trustworthy because he has a clear agenda; unlike Stephen, he stands to benefit directly if racism is lessened or eliminated.

Furthermore, it is expected that people of color in academia (particularly in the social sciences and humanities) will be engaged in scholarly pursuits related to race and ethnicity. This, like many stereotypes, is an assumption rooted in reality. It is true that a vastly disproportionate number of scholars who work on these issues are of color, and it is true that a great number of scholars who are of color have as their research interest issues that involve race. But it is quite frustrating for scholars of color who are not interested in these issues to be presumed to be, much like it is frustrating for all tall persons to be constantly asked if they play basketball. And for Whites who have devoted their careers to exploring (in the case of scholars) or fighting (in the case of activists) racism, similar questions arise.

Whites ask them (sometimes quite openly), "Why do you do this? Do you feel guilty about being White?" People of color are sometimes (though, at least in Stephen's experience, not often openly) concerned about the possibility of intellectual colonialism. In other words, just like a man who teaches Women's Studies must be thoughtful about being patriarchal in his approach, Whites who are involved in these issues need to be constantly reflective about the potential to be (or even to appear to be) presumptuous about the proper way to do or think about things.

THIS WEEK, Chris Matthews (left) promoted a documentary about the Kennedy brothers (planned to air this coming Thursday on MSNBC -- see trailer here or below), some of which, naturally, focuses on their participation in the Civil Rights Movement. In plugging the program on The Colbert Report this past Thursday, Matthews claimed that the Kennedy brothers "created the Civil Rights Movement," to which Colbert brilliantly replied, "I loved Kennedy's 'I Have a Dream Speech.'" (Matthews appeared not to pick up on the jab). The comment is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's remark during the Democratic primary contest in January 2008: “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.” The problem, of course, is that these statements give ultimate (rather than proportionate) credit to Whites for the progress made to bring about racial equality.

This notion is not unprecedented, and we would not argue that it is an intentional slight. In other words, it is reflective of the speakers' latent racism, not of any conscious bigotry. As another example, school children who were educated in the second half of the 20th century, unless they were part of an Afrocentric curriculum, likely learned that Rosa Parks was an elderly woman who was too tired from a hard day of work as a seamstress to get out of her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. Though Rosa Parks did work the day she was arrested, she was not old (42), and while she was, indeed, tired, her real fatigue was from injustice and frustration that her work with the NAACP was not yielding enough publicity for the cause. Rosa Parks was an advocate for racial justice and was participating in an act of civil disobedience when she refused to give up her seat.

Why, then, did generations of children learn such a different story about Rosa Parks? While conspiracy theories are interesting (and often warranted), one need not believe in any conscious decision on the part of Whites to appreciate the cause and effect of this myth. (One compelling argument, for example, is that by not celebrating Parks's direct action, young folks were not taught to believe that civil disobedience was an acceptable or effective response to injustice.) It is more comfortable for Whites (who until very recently had the market cornered on writing history and History textbooks) to believe that it was the benevolence of Whites that remedied the past evils of slavery, Jim Crow and racism in general. It is comfortable for White folks to believe that while they may never have owned a slave or forced someone to a separate water fountain, they (and/or folks like them) took responsibility and corrected the wrongs of those earlier times.

To a certain extent, of course, this is correct. Whites did control almost all the power in those days (as they disproportionately still do), so Hillary Clinton and others were right in noting that "it took" Whites (not just LBJ but the U.S. Supreme Court, White members of Congress, etc.) to "get it done." But such a half-story undermines the courage and intelligence of African Americans who did much of the hard work and planning for years before Whites took notice on a large scale. Further, such skewed versions of history reinforce stereotypes of African Americans as helpless and needing Whites to come to the rescue.

And this remains the primary complication of the contemporary White American who is concerned with and involved in understanding and/or solving the problem of racial inequality. These folks do not wish to be perceived as believing that they are coming to the rescue. They wish to work alongside people of color in the struggle, all the while knowing that it is at once not their struggle and at the same time -- since White supremacy ultimately hurts every member of society -- very much their struggle, too.

In addition to the millions of White Americans who are deeply committed to moving forward toward greater racial equality, there are a handful of White scholars and activists who are deeply engaged in these issues. You might have (should have) come across the work of Tim Wise or that of our friend and colleague Bob Jensen, for instance. Are they driven by guilt? Probably initially, but not ultimately.

When White folks realize the depth and complexity involved in racism (i.e., that it is more than simply disliking someone based on the color of his or her skin), there is an inevitable feeling of guilt because they understand that it is impossible to know how much of what they have achieved is the result of their own hard work and perseverance and how much can be attributed to their race. That is a confusing place to be, and it invariably leads to some feelings of guilt.

But Whites who are committed to being anti-racist (which is a proactive stance that differs from simply being not racist, which we contend is impossible without the praxis involved with anti-racism) -- whether they are dentists or service workers or insurance salespersons -- do so because they feel a responsibility to take advantage of their advantage. They seek to use the privilege that they neither sought nor earned to contribute to the dismantling of the system that provided it to them.

Finally, then, we come to Mr. Blain's question that he posted to our Facebook page: [W]hy [are] white liberals . . . unable to grasp and take action to expose, challenge and provide alternatives to the racism spouted from the right?"

One reason is that it very difficult to address because it is so complicated. A sophisticated understanding of racism cannot be reduced to sound bites. People of color understand it because it is a part of their lived experience. One of the ultimate privileges that comes with being White, however, is that it is possible to go through most of one's life without considering race. (Of course, anyone paying attention to the news in the past few years in particular does not have such a luxury, which is one of the most powerful benefits of having a Black candidate for president, and, of course, a Black president.) Most White folks believe that if they avoid basing their conscious evaluations of people on skin color (or gender or sexual orientation) then they have successfully avoided racism (or sexism or heterosexism). To convince them otherwise requires that they have an understanding of how the human brain works (i.e., the subconscious) and how systems and institutions are more than the sum of the humans who occupy positions within them. In short, it takes a lot of work to disrupt the comfort most Whites have come to enjoy with respect to their own (mostly subconscious) racism.

Secondly, many Whites do not feel that it is their "place" to engage in such conversations. While those who understand the complexities of racism understand that the battle is against a system of White supremacy, not against White people, most folks see it as a battle between Whites and persons of color. They may be rooting for persons of color to "get ahead," but they do not see how they are involved so long as they remain "color blind."

Finally, it is important to understand that many of the "liberal Whites" who are out in front and are visibly and vocally advocating for a more tolerant and fair society with respect to race are not the folks who have (or who articulate) the most sophisticated understanding of how it works. Chris Matthews, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and others are certainly on the liberal side of the political spectrum and have been clear about their commitment to racial progress, but if we compare their statements and actions against Barack Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech or the writings and public statements of Patricia J. Williams or bell hooks or Cornel West or Michael Eric Dyson or (most prominently as of late) Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Marc Lamont Hill, we can see that the depth of understanding is absent from the public comments of these progressive Whites (if not from their own personal understanding). In that sense, while it is certainly better than leaving the issue to Patrick Buchanan or Glenn Beck -- or leaving it unaddressed -- it does a sort of disservice because it perpetuates and reinforces the notion that progressive Whites must simply avoid racial prejudice for their work to be done. It is certainly admirable to avoid bigotry, but it is only through a proactive anti-racist process that White supremacy will ultimately be dismantled.

In The Souls of Black Folk, W.E.B. DuBois criticized Booker T. Washington's approach to racial progress by noting that it "has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro’s shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs." Just as DuBois was correct that "the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line," he is correct that the burden to dismantle an unjust system falls on all of our shoulders. Whites and people of color, however, must bear that burden differently while we bear it together precisely because of the ways in which racism has affected us differently as it has affected us together.

We want to give a special shout-out THIS WEEK to the kind contributors at the Google Blogger Help newsgroup who solved a relatively minor but nagging issue that we had. You may have noticed that the RaceProject "favicon" (the small logo that appears in your URL window and favorites list) and our list of "Links" only appeared on the main landing page and not on the archived pages. That's fixed now, so you should see them on every page you surf on the blog site. Thanks, Blogger Help folks!

Labels: , , , , , ,


At 8/23/09 11:21 PM, Blogger Monica said...

I loved reading this. Thanks.

At 8/23/09 11:27 PM, Blogger Janie's Got a Blog said...

The more I struggle to become a post racial white lesbian activist (if there is or EVER shall be such an animal) the further away from my goal I seem to be. But I am up to the task. I have lots of links to follow from your post.
BTW I did catch Matthews' "Kennedy brothers invented the civil right movement" snafu. Colbert's lightning round comeback was golden. If only I could think that fast in those situations!!
Please send me more links to your work.
Thank you for your good work and for being an ally yourself.

Jane from Boston
On Twitter as JaneEblueyes

At 8/24/09 12:55 AM, Anonymous Alex Finke said...

Thank you so much for saying something about the Chris Matthews comment. I saw on the Colbert Report and could not believe it.

At 8/24/09 1:44 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Wow...I have finally found a place where someone gets it...Thank you guys for covering these issues and I look forward to what is to come...I am about to begin conducting research on race relations in thie country and the deep wounds that have been created as a result and it will be great to know where to go to hear/read real talk on the subject...Thanks again.

At 8/25/09 6:56 PM, Anonymous Mr. Purple said...

What I am curious to know is what society will look like after white supremacy is gone? I suspect poverty and injustice will remain. Any thoughts on this?

At 8/25/09 10:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say "unlike Stephen, he stands to benefit directly if racism is lessened or eliminated".

Don't we ALL stand to benefit directly if (and I'd prefer to say instead of "if", "as") racism is lessed or eliminated? Imagine what a more productive society we could live in if we moved beyond racism.

At 8/26/09 3:05 PM, Blogger Steve Julian said...

I wonder where Joseph C Phillips is on the spectrum? In any case, I can see the necessity of "Allies" but I wonder if they are considered enemies of their group? In the end Allies can walk to the door with you, but they can't come in.
With Privilege it should be embraced, rather than seen as baggage. It's what you do with your privilege that defines your character.
Educating ourselves on racism is not a one read fix. As you say it is a complex issue. Is the elimination of racism the end goal or are there tactical victories that can be made?

At 10/20/09 1:54 PM, Blogger Kelly Hogaboom said...

Thank you - I really enjoyed this read.

At 10/27/09 10:34 AM, Blogger Derek Vandivere said...

FWIW, I never learned anything about Rosa Parks's situation other than that she decided not to sit in the back (graduated high school in the south in '86). Not sure what facts you're basing your assertion about how she's being taught in schools...

And Clinton's comment had nothing to do with race - she was trying (clumsily) to say that it took a Presidential Executive Order to formalize the progress that had been made. If I recall correctly, she was talking up her civil rights credentials, then someone tried to comment that they weren't so relevant for a Presidential candidate, then she made the reply about Johnson.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home