The price of educating against bigotry by the dominant group.
In 1872, a famous eggman was quoted as saying, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” According to the source material, he then had a great fall from the wall upon which he sat, and said no more, because he became no more than a wet splat.
In 1972, an anti-racist academic named Patricia Bidol wrote a textbook entitled “Developing New Perspectives on Race: An Innovative Multi-media Social Studies Curriculum in Racism Awareness for the Secondary Level“. Pretty dry stuff.
Bidol’s focus was not on racism in general, but on institutional or systemic racism, which works in terms of laws and policies. While such racism is implemented by individuals, it is impersonal in manner and this facelessness increases its harm. Bidol made that clear when she stipulated that the definition of “racism” she used in the book was “prejudice plus power“; in other words, systemic racism.
This is all well and good. It’s completely legitimate for someone to stipulate a more narrow definition, if that’s what their text is focusing on, so long as they make that intent clear, as Bidol did. Humpty Dumpty did nothing wrong!
Unfortunately, certain activist popularizers decided to try to make this stipulative definition the normative one, taking over by fiat. With this change, it’s not just that systemic racism happens to be the type that Bidol is concerned with in her writing, it’s the only kind of racism that they’re willing to acknowledge the existence of. If it’s not systemic racism, they insist that it is, by (their) definition, not racism at all.
This peculiar, revisionist redefinition has not caught on, except in certain niches, but those niches are highly aggressive. The modern proponents also go further than Bidol intended, claiming that that personal—not systemic or institutional—racism is likewise one-sided by definition. Their definition, naturally.
If a white person hurls racist slurs, discriminates on the basis of race, or commits racially-motivated violence, these count as racism of the personal sort. No argument here. But if a Native American did the same thing, even against a Mexican American, it “can’t” be racist, they insist. Why?!
Essentially, they’re committing the No true Scotsman fallacy. Racism is bigotry that’s rooted in the notion of race, but when we consider racism outside the dominant group, these people claim it’s not true racism solely because they’ve chosen to artificially narrow their definition to exclude it. They move the goalposts so that only they can score.
They don’t stop at racism, instead applying this notion to other forms of bigotry in the same way. They claim, for example, that sexism against men is “impossible” because men have the power. All of it, somehow. We’ll come back to this, but first let me argue against myself.
On the one hand, it’s easy to understand why we might want to focus on bigotry by the dominant group; essentially, straight, cis, able-bodied, well-to-do, white, Christian men.
This is the biggest, longest-running, most entrenched, and most harmful form of bigotry in America precisely because the dominant group has the power to not only get away with acts of personal bigotry, but to institutionalize this bigotry systematically. Not only are they above the law; they are the law. They write it and they enforce it, all to their own advantage.
None of this is merely theoretical; it is our history of colonialism and white supremacy. Moreover, it’s obvious that much of the bigotry encountered by the dominant group is, if not well-deserved, at least entirely understandable in context. It’s blowback, when the oppressed have a chance to turn the tables on their oppressors.
White supremacy is the (white) elephant in the middle of the room, so prevalent that we take it for granted. The dominant group, despite being a numerical minority, forms the baseline for our expectations, against which everyone else is contrasted.
This white, male doctor is just a doctor, but that woman is a woman doctor, that Hispanic is a Hispanic doctor, and so on. The dominant group hyphenates the rest into inferiority. They are the peak of the hierarchy, with others being measured in terms of how close they come; white men above white women, white women above Black men, Black men above Black women, and so on.
So when the elephant bellows, we can’t ignore it. It deserves to be our focus, our target, our greatest internal enemy. We should hate it and we should fight it.
However, while this hatred of bigotry is not in itself bigotry, responding in kind is. It’s good to hate Nazis, even to punch them, but it’s wrong to hate the German people as a whole just because some of them were Nazis, even if Nazis ran their country.
The latter goes past blaming the oppressors and becomes guilt by association. It generalizes to groups that people have no choice about being a member of, instead of holding them accountable for what they choose to do. This is the very definition of bigotry.
To bring the example home, hatred of white supremacy is fully justified, but it’s bigotry to hate white people for the existence of white supremacy. Hatred of misogyny is justified, but it’s bigotry to hate men. Hating people for choosing to be bigots is not bigotry; hating people because of the bigotry of others who happen to look like them is.
It gets worse. One corollary of their view is that, when minorities commit acts of bigotry, it doesn’t count because it’s just insult, not injury. We’re weak and powerless, so our mere words are not like the sticks and stones of the dominant group.
According to this, when someone in the dominant group complains of being a victim of bigotry, we should disregard them because their hurt feelings are not important compared to the broken bones of “real” bigotry. Even complaining is a symptom of “fragility” and is worthy of mockery and disapproval, they insist.
This view infantilizes minorities, denying them agency and autonomy. It falls right into the “white savior” trope, where the oppressed are too weak to fight back and it’s up to sympathetic members of the dominant group to cross the line and fight for us, making all the decisions in the process, and taking all the credit.
But not being dominant doesn’t entail being subservient. Power is never as simple as all or nothing. Not having the bulk of the power doesn’t mean being powerless. It means having less power in many places, and sometimes more power in a few. And where we have power, even the power to act personally and directly, our bigotry can cause injury, not just insult.
Minorities can certainly benefit from members of the dominant group who oppose bigotry, but we are not feeble and defenseless on our own. The whole point of our movement is that we’re all fundamentally equal and deserve to be treated as such.
Narrowing the definition of bigotry to make it one-sided is in itself bigoted, not only against the dominant group but against the oppressed. And yet it is a frequent component of performative anti-bigotry, the false wokeness that latched onto—and corrupted—Bidol’s work.
Speaking out against it, no matter how clearly and gently, is a sure way to be branded a bigot, even though all you’re saying is that bigotry is bad no matter who does it. It’s such a simple, self-evident point, which is perhaps why the counter-reaction is so vicious.
The irony is that the intentions behind this were good. This didn’t start off as a cover for minority bigotry; Bidol is a white woman. She wrote this book to teach (presumably white) high school students not to be racists. She meant well, but the idea mutated and became toxic.
By fetishizing white guilt and applying a double standard, it only serves to create more bigotry. It alienates those who would otherwise be more sympathetic, it provides a defense for bigotry against the dominant group, and it reduces the oppressed to mere victims.
And instead of being able to focus on systemic changes, the dominant group is expected to participate in endless performative public self-flagellation; mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! When you’re busy performing, you don’t have time to do the real work.
They know what they’re doing is wrong, which is why they’re so touchy about it, but they figure that the end justifies the means. Sure, this ideology is insulting and unfair, but that’s the price we have to pay as educators to punish students for their unrequested privilege and guilt them into anti-racism.
If these activists want to make an anti-racist omelet, they figure they gotta break a few eggs, or at least bruise the feel-bads of brittle wypipo. But if Humpty taught us anything, it’s that breaking eggs makes a mess that splatters all over the place and there’s no undoing it.
If you want to see a perfect example of what a disaster this has become, here is a white woman giving other white people orders on how to react to black people. White Savior too the core. https://twitter.com/LadyMenopause
Based on the photo, I think she’d consider herself black, but she does start posts with the awkward “My fellow white people” and pushes the notion of “allyship”.
For what I think about “allyship”, see: https://truth-sandwich.com/2019/02/25/toasted-white-bread/
(Hint: I’m against it.)
I don’t use twitter, so I find its vernacular annoying–the gist of certain conversations escapes me. I get your analysis loud and clear but I don’t know what Lady Menopause trying to say.
Am I correct in assuming your analysis here has something to do with the “Insufferably Woke” op ed in the NYT recently?
As a white woman, I have felt distinctly discriminated against by a group of black people on a couple of occasions over the course of my life. My feeling at the time was a kind of weird quiet approval and happiness that they felt secure enough in themselves to own and openly display their bias against my whiteness. Both situations were isolated incidents and both times the rejection was appropriate, understandable and, even justified. To me, it was a sign blacks were moving beyond their beholden-ness. I thought it was healthy.
One time was when I chose to walk home (at dusk) from Columbia University, through Harlem, to my place in midtown Manhattan. Another was when I, loving gospel music as I do, decided to attend a church in Boston I’d heard about—for the music, not the god stuff.
The truth is that Twitter is a shithole. It is people at their worst.
They are encouraged by the medium to be uncharitable, hostile, and quick to block.
I got blocked by a few people for going after partisanism that pretends to be anti-racist but is just anti-white-supremacy. I also got followed by more than I lost. Being visible gets attention.
Racism against members of the dominant group, or dominant-adjacent ones (as you’re at least two steps removed from the pinnacle) is not a good sign. It’s bad in itself, as all racism is. It’s bad in that it’s likely blowback, so it reveals the ongoing nature of white supremacy. And — which was my point — it’s bad because it undermines the fight for equality by making enemies out of partners.
I think your argument is far more advanced than our society is at this point in time. Most people are’t willing to accept such a nuanced view. It might be valid in a hundred years when blacks no longer fill our prisons; when whites are getting shot by black cops for no reason.
You seem to be treading a very narrow path here. You’re against allyship, but you’re for equality. So how does one promote a path toward equality for blacks in this country? Are you advocating doing nothing about it at all and letting blacks find equality on their own terms without advocacy from (dare I say it) “pro-black” people such as myself? Because, ICYHN, it’s been very slow going for American blacks.
In fact, the LGBTQ community has made more progress in two decades than blacks have in two centuries. Blacks are the most oppressed group–by a long shot—in this country.
I am against this newfound advocacy for muslims because I don’t give a damn about religion, especially one as screwed up as the American christian right If that makes me a bigot, so be it. I’ve supported the ADL for a long, long time because antisemitism is about much more than religion. I don’t know how I feel about the latino complaints of inequality because, frankly, I don’t see a lot of discrimination there. They’ve successfully assimilated AFAICS. LGBTQxyz can continue to focus on themselves as they have been doing all along. They’ll do just fine. So will latinos and muslims.
None of them are hated as much as the American negro.
So… when you talk about bigotry, I think only of this country’s long-standing comfortable tolerance of its ubiquitous, deep-seated racism toward our black citizens and the horror and destruction it has caused and continues to perpetuate. These people are our fellow Americans, have been here for three hundred years, are quiet about their religion, are notably patriotic, and happen be black. Fixing THAT is what I’m focused on, and it will take more than just being a spectator to their fight for the right not to be shot dead for absolutely nothing. If the left has become so overly sensitive that saying, “I’m not a bigot” means I am one, then perhaps they are way overthinking this thing.
[I’m knee deep in rearranging furniture, selecting recipes and entertainment for a bunch of houseguests staying three nights over the holiday, so I think this little rant of mine was anxiety displacement.] 😉
Nuance is not dead, but it has always had a tenuous place online.
I’m contrasting between being a full partner and a junior partner (ally). In the former view, everyone who fights for equality is on the same side of the war, regardless of what they identify (or are identified) as or what aspect of equality they’re focusing on at the moment. In the latter, there is no war, just a series of independent, partisan battles between minorities and the dominant group, and anyone who’s not a member of a particular minority can pitch in, but only as cannon fodder.
The main reason LGBTetc people have gained so much in so little time is that they’re hard to segregate. Gay kids are born to straight parents all the time, so homosexuals are distributed pretty evenly. Anyone who says they don’t know any personally is either lying or is such an obvious homophobe that gay acquaintances remain closeted around them.
In contrast, there is a long practice of ghettoization, where more-visible minorities are rounded up and kept isolated from mainstream society. Redlining is a big gun, but the effort has been taken to absurd extremes, such as separate-and-unequal bathrooms for black people.
Hispanics can sometimes pass for white, and when they can, they usually do. But they’re still oppressed; look at what we’re doing to the children of Hispanic refugees right now if you have any doubt.
Jews are in a similar situation, though generally better off, yet the Charlottesville Nazis focused on them in particular. Nobody is safe through assimilation. And, of course, while Judaism is a religion, Jewishness is an ethnicity. They’re linked but distinct.
Muslims are complicated in a similar way, because there’s the religion and then there are the associated ethnicities. Much of Islamophobia actually targets Arabs and various non-Muslims from places like India. While I’m no fan of any organized (or even disorganized) religion and especially not socially regressive ones, the Islamophobes are largely regressive Christians, themselves.
Again, pretty much anyone who *can* pass, will. This not only avoids mistreatment but provides certain privileges. But the “disguise” is thin and provides little protection in the end. The victims of the Holocaust were, by and large, Germans who fit right in with other Germans, but they were singled out for their differences, not their similarities.
“The main reason LGBT etc people have gained so much in so little time is that they’re hard to segregate. Gay kids are born to straight parents all the time, so homosexuals are distributed pretty evenly.”
Excellent point.
Last week in a tv interview, Mike Bloomberg described Cory Booker as “well-spoken.” Big social-news media uproar followed. Bloomberg immediately made a sincere public apology, and the story died a quick death. That little incident brought to mind this omelette analysis of yours. I realized that there is quite a difference between the insufferably woke stance on racism and the common sense handling of things like entrenched subtle aspersions that, on the surface appear to praise, but slightly deeper are insulting. Complementing Booker on being well-spoken would have been fine if Booker was white—but because he isn’t, it came across as insulting to some–just like your examples of “woman doctor” or “black doctor,” it insinuates that being black and well spoken is a real accomplishment for persons of color. In his apology, Bloomberg said he’d not meant it as demeaning, that he and Booker are friends, and that, academically, Booker puts him (MB) to shame, (mentioning Booker’s Rhodes Scholarship, etc).
I’m glad this little gaff was the buzz for a minute because I have faint recollections of praising persons of color in such a way myself. But in my case, I think I might have really been subconsciously singling those persons out as being exceptional compared to the average person of color, where Bloomberg was speaking specifically about his own puzzlement over Booker’s lackluster performance during the Democratic debates where the term “well-spoken” was, in fact, contextually most appropriate. Still, Bloomberg saw the larger issue and went directly to a public apology, wasting no time defending himself.
I find it extremely annoying when the now-dominant millennial ”insufferably woke” generation stretches an issue to the breaking point while never truly understanding the depth of the issue. They tend to debate, theorize, guess, and suppose a lot, while often failing to grasp the real heart of a matter. There is a collective acceptance that superficiality is good enough. It’s not
Unfortunately, “well-spoken” has a long history of being used as a damning-with-faint-praises “compliment” addressed at black people. Mike is old and old-fashioned, but he ought to have known better. He screwed up.
Last week in a TV interview, Mike Bloomberg described Cory Booker as “well-spoken.” Big social-news media uproar followed. Bloomberg immediately made a sincere public apology, and the story died a quick death. That little incident brought to mind this omelette analysis of yours, deli-master.
Of course, Bloomberg is very much aware of entrenched race-related subtle aspersions that, on the surface, appear to praise but slightly deeper, are insulting. Complementing Booker on being well-spoken would have been fine if Booker was white—but because he isn’t, it came across as condescending or bigoted to many, who h brought home to me your examples of “woman doctor” or “black doctor,” it insinuated that being well spoken is a real accomplishment for persons of color. In his apology, Bloomberg said he’d not meant it as demeaning, that he and Booker are longtime friends, and that, academically, Booker puts him (MB) to shame, citing Booker’s education and Rhodes Scholarship.
I’m glad this little gaff was the buzz for a minute and a half because it made me realize that I have been guilty of similar slights. I have faint recollections of praising persons of color in such a way, but in my case, I think I might have really been subconsciously singling those persons out as being exceptional compared to the average person of color–where Bloomberg was speaking specifically about his puzzlement over Booker’s lackluster performance during the Democratic debates. In that context, the term “well-spoken” was appropriate. Still, Bloomberg saw the larger issue and went directly to a sincere public apology, and wasted not one second defending himself.
I came to the realization that one reason I like Bloomberg is that he wastes no time on bullshit. He’s an anti-populist, I guess. He doesn’t talk much about doing things, he just gets them done. Then I zeroed in on the reason I so dislike today’s trigger-happy woke left left. They do a lot of talking and not much doing. There is a collective deafness among them that prevents understanding more open-minded, common sense approaches to important issues. They’d rather take umbrage than complain, debate, spin, etc.
The ”insufferably woke” (thank you, NYT) population stretches an issue to the breaking point while never truly understanding the depth of the issue. They tend to debate, theorize, guess, and suppose a lot, while failing to grasp the real heart of a matter. There seems to be a general acceptance among the woke that a superficial understanding of any important issue is good enough. It’s not. Sustainable solutions require open mindedness, thorough understanding of the problem, objectivity and common sense.
I’ve listened to a few of Bloomberg’s interviews and he is neither insufferable nor woke. But he’s wide awake, honest, has integrity and smarts. How very refreshing! Then there’s the bonus: no populist rhetoric! I believe that one makes him unique among today’s presidential wannabe’s.