Tim Wise: White Priviledge

Custom Search

[kinfokedez]

January 06, 2005

Race to Our Credit

By Tim Wise

Sometimes it can be difficult, having a conversation with those whose political views are so diametrically opposed to one's own.

But even more challenging, is having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept even the most basic elements of your worldview. At that point, disagreement is less about the specifics of one or another policy option, and more about the nature of social reality itself.

This is what it can be like sometimes, when trying to discuss the issue of white privilege with white people. Despite being an obvious institutionalized phenomenon to people of color and even some of us white folks, white privilege is typically denied, and strongly, by most of us.

Usually, this denial plays out in one of two ways: either we seek to shift the focus of discussion to our status as members of some other group that isn't socially dominant (so, for example, whites who are poor or working class will insist that because of their economic marginalization, they effectively enjoy no racial privilege at all), or we retreat to the tired but popular notion that all have an equal opportunity in this, our colorblind meritocracy.

Denying ones privileges is of course nothing if not logical. To admit that one receives such things is to acknowledge that one is implicated in the process by which others are oppressed or discriminated against. It makes fairly moot the oft-heard defense that "I wasn't around back then, and I never owned slaves, or killed any Indians," or whatever.

If one has reaped the benefits of those past injustices (to say nothing of ongoing discrimination in the present) by being elevated, politically, economically and socially above persons of color, for example--which whites as a group surely have been thanks to enslavement, Indian genocide and Jim Crow--then whether or not one did the deed becomes largely a matter of irrelevance.

Of course, what is ultimately overlooked is that denial of one's privilege itself manifests a form of privilege: namely, the privilege of being able to deny another person's reality (a reality to which they speak regularly) and suffer no social consequence as a result.

Whites pay no price, in other words, for dismissing the claims of racism so regularly launched by persons of color, seeing as how the latter have no power to punish such disbelievers at the polls, or in the office suites, or in the schools in most cases.

On the other hand, people of color who refuse to buy into white reality--the "reality" of the U.S. as a "shining city on a hill," or the "reality" of never-ending progress, or the "reality" of advancement by merit--often pay a heavy toll: they are marginalized, called "professional victims," or accused of playing the race card.

Consider the common charge of conspiratorial paranoia hurled at any person of color, for example, who dared to point out the racially-disparate voter purging that took place in Florida in 2000, or in various places in 2004. White reality is privileged at every turn, so that if whites say something is a problem, it is, and if whites insist it isn't, then it isn't.

Those of us who are white remain thought of as sober-minded, and never as given to underestimating the extent of racism, making a molehill out of what is, in fact, often a mountain, or playing our own race card, the denial card, which far and away trumps whatever pallid alternative people of color may occasionally find in their own decks.

In other words, privilege is not merely about money and wealth. It is not merely something that attaches when one is born with the proverbial silver spoon in one's mouth. Rather it is the daily psychological advantage of knowing that one's perceptions of the world are the ones that stick, that define the norm for everyone else, and that are taken seriously in the mainstream.

Whiteness is so privileged in everyday dialogue that one need look no further than our nation's post-election discourse to see how it operates.

So, for example, one after another commentator in the wake of election night pontificated, without hesitation, that the outcome had been a referendum on "moral values," and the result of high turnout amongst evangelical Christians, who overwhelmingly voted for President Bush.

Yet what this analysis ignored is that it was only some evangelicals who overwhelmingly chose to re-elect the President, while others voted to do exactly the opposite. Indeed, black evangelicals voted eight to one against Bush, meaning that the mainstream talking heads, as usual were privileging the white perspective, and universalizing the particular behavior of white folks, as if it were the standard for everyone.

So too with the so-called "red state, blue state" divide. Fact is, the divide is less one of geography than race: a majority of whites in the blue states (including California and New York) voted for Bush on election day, while the vast majority of blacks and the majority of other persons of color in the red states voted against him.

But part of white privilege is never having to examine the peculiarity of white behavior (or even acknowledge that there is such a thing as white group behavior at all), and so naturally, this racial aspect of electoral division remains unexamined, and the more comforting perspective (for whites at least) that there is merely a split based on residence remains largely unchal

[kinfokedez]

unchallenged.

But it's more than that. Even more important as an example of white privilege--the kind that adheres to all whites, not just the rich--is the ability to avoid being stigmatized by the actions of others who just so happen to fall within the same racial group as you.

While people of color bear the burden of disproving negative stereotypes regularly--when interviewing for a job, taking a standardized test, or merely driving in the "wrong" neighborhood, where they are presumed not to belong--whites rarely if ever have to worry that the actions of others like us, no matter how horrible, will stick to us or force us to prove that we are somehow different.

For example, whites can screw up on the job, run entire corporations into the ground, rip off the Savings and Loans to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, cut corners on occupational safety and health in the workplace, or scam millions from employee pension funds, without the rest of us having to worry that such incompetence or outright dishonesty will result in whites being viewed suspiciously every time we seek to climb to the top of the corporate ladder.

White men in Lexuses (or is it Lexi?) will not need to fear being pulled over by police on suspicion of transporting documents confirming their latest fiscal shenanigans.

When Martha Stewart conspires to cover up a stock dumping scam, white women across America do not cower in fear that somehow they will be viewed as dishonest and predatory as a result. Nor white men thanks to Ken Lay.

If the President of the United States mispronounces every fifth word out of his mouth, none of us white folks have to worry that someone will ascribe his verbal incompetence to some general white illiteracy. But honestly, do we think that if this President were black, or Latino or Asian Pacific American, or indigenous, and mangled the English language with the regularity of the actual President, that no one would make the leap from individual to group defect?

Why is it that when the white President of the University of Tennessee overspends his expense account by millions, using public funds for expensive rugs, home furnishings and lavish chartered plane trips, no one suggests that perhaps it's time for the school to pick a black or brown chief executive, but when the black President of historically black Tennessee State University is seen as mismanaging that school's resources, voices all across my hometown of Nashville began to whisper (or even say quite loudly) that perhaps it was time for TSU to get a white President?

For those reading this who are white, ask yourselves, when was the last time you felt the need to stand up and apologize for a crime committed by another white person? Better yet, when was the last time you felt the need to do this for fear that if you didn't, your community would come to be viewed as inherently violent and dangerous, and perhaps be attacked as a result? And when was the last time someone suggested that our failure to openly condemn white criminals implicated us in their wrongdoing?

Yet what of the recent murders in Wisconsin by a Hmong immigrant, who killed six white hunters when they confronted him in a private deer stand? Not only did bumper stickers crop up within days reading, "Save a deer, shoot a Hmong," implying that the shooter was somehow representative of a larger group evil, but more to the point, the Hmong and larger Southeast Asian communities in Wisconsin and Minnesota (where the shooter was from) rushed to distance themselves from him.

This distancing was, of course, only made necessary because to not do so would put others like them at risk, in a way no white person has ever been put at risk because some of our number occasionally kills folks.

Likewise, nearly a decade ago, when a Hmong woman in the Twin Cities murdered her six children, her status as a racial and ethnic minority was front and center in discussion of the crime--anger on talk radio was pointed at the Hmong as a group, or Asians more broadly, for example--but a few years back, when Andrea Yates killed her five kids in Texas, or when Susan Smith drowned her two boys in a South Carolina lake, no one attacked her as an example of what's wrong with white folks these days.

Even when some white teenager commits a racially-motivated hate crime, as happened recently in Simi Valley, California where four white youths beat two black kids to a pulp, the white response is one that seeks to demonstrate that their town is not racist (as if geography alone ever commits an aggravated assault), rather than hoping to prove that all whites aren't that way. The latter possibility would never enter their minds, and why?

It's why in the aftermath of 9/11, you could hear one after another white person demanding to know, and being treated as reasonable for asking it, "where are the moderate voices in the Arab Muslim community prepared to condemn terrorism," all because nineteen out of 1.5 billion Muslims on Planet Earth flew planes into buildings. Yet one cannot fathom anyone being taken seriously if they were to ask, "where are the moderate white Christians," in the aftermath of Oklahoma City or any of a number of abortion clinic bombings.

It's why whenever this issue is raised, white folks rush to insist that we're "just individuals," and want to be thought of as such, rather than as whites. Indeed, we often believe that to even point out our raci

[kinfokedez]

Indeed, we often believe that to even point out our racial identity is racist, as it groups us unfairly and diminishes our "humanness," or "Americanness."

Of course, the irony in such a position is that it is only members of the dominant group in a society who could ever have the luxury of viewing ourselves, or expecting to be viewed by others as "individuals."

That's the point: no one else has ever been able to assume they would be viewed that way, because at no point have they been, nor do they get to be so viewed today, as the aforementioned examples demonstrate all too clearly.

To even say that our group status is irrelevant or should be is to suggest that one has enjoyed the privilege of experiencing the world that way (or rather, believing that one was). In other words, it is the result of a particular social arrangement, whereby some and not others have been seen as individuals no matter the actions of others within their group. There is, of course a phrase for this arrangement.

White privilege.

And until it is eradicated, dug up and discarded root and branch, there can be no legitimate discussion of "colorblindness" or simple individualism. Nor can we be taken seriously as a nation when we hold ourselves up as an example to other nations of what freedom and democracy are supposed to look like.

Tim Wise is an essayist, activist and father. He can be reached at timjwise@msn.com, and his website is located at www.timwise.org. Hate mail, while neither appreciated nor desired, will be graded for spelling, grammar, style and content.

[Speed]

Hate mail, while neither appreciated nor desired, will be graded for spelling, grammar, style and content.

Haha...

I think this is a fair example.  But wouldn't you say it is majority priviledge?  I got a white friend who grew up in the Bahamas (he wasn't well off) and got beaten up most days...

Or this is a typical 'If it happens in America, then everywhere must be like it'

[I ELIJAH I]

Give Thanks for the post- to me it reminds me of how much humanity in general is subject to such foolishness- in this time and in certain places it has manifested as "white privilege" but in essence it is the universal energies of ignorance, greed, and malevolence.  Focusing of "white' people is inevitably going to make people defensive and reactionary because one cannot change the color of their skin, and the issue is only going to be made worse. Whereas if the issues of   -superficial judgement-          -mindless action-     -strong dominating weak mentality-        where highlighted so that all of mankind could see how it is implicit at times in these flaws of charachter, then the growth could truly begin on all levels. True in the USA and in other western domains the issue is "white priviledge" but on the global (and iniversal) scale- what can it be called but sin?                         Jah Rastafari

[Speed]

Give Thanks for the post- to me it reminds me of how much humanity in general is subject to such foolishness- in this time and in certain places it has manifested as "white privilege" but in essence it is the universal energies of ignorance, greed, and malevolence.  Focusing of "white' people is inevitably going to make people defensive and reactionary because one cannot change the color of their skin, and the issue is only going to be made worse. Whereas if the issues of   -superficial judgement-          -mindless action-     -strong dominating weak mentality-        where highlighted so that all of mankind could see how it is implicit at times in these flaws of charachter, then the growth could truly begin on all levels. True in the USA and in other western domains the issue is "white priviledge" but on the global (and iniversal) scale- what can it be called but sin?                         Jah Rastafari

I failed to see this in my analysis, great words.... Praises!

[EmpressCarla]

elijah, in these topics you always seem to get very defensive. Hear what the man is saying. It appears to me that he IS talking about western society more so than any other. Aren't these "domains" the ones in power?

Before you get on the defensive, I would ask that you go back and re-read everything with an open mind. Meditate on it. Let it marinate, as we like to say. There is truth in his words, rather you choose to be open to it or not.

[Speed]

I think on this occassion Elijah has some very valid points... On a global level we have the majority of leaders enjoying 'class priviledge' and 'power priviledge' no matter what color but then that is mostly because the USA pays these countries money to do what they want.... White Priviledge, maybe?!

[EmpressCarla]

Yes elijah does make some valid points, but so does Mr. Wise. We can talk all day long about the issues of superficial judgement, mindless action or the strong dominating the weak, but should that discussion not start with a question of, "Who is perpetrating these things?" It just seems to me that white people simply do not want to take responsibility for their past and present actions. Please understand, this is not an indictment of all white people. But racism and white privilege DO exist. Can we not admit that some things are systematic?

Suppose I have a relationship with a man who is repeatedly abusive. Even if I left the relationship, eventually I might start to build resentment for that man. His treatment of me might cause me to become leary of all men and subsequently taint my future relationships with men. After a while, I would probably start to blame that man for not only the abuse, but now for the continued emotional issues I face because of his abuse. All of that is understandable, is it not? So why then, when the abuser is "white people" should I not put the blame on the blamee?

Now I know that ultimately I need to forgive my abuser in order to have my own healing. Only then can I move forward with my life. But what of my abuser? Is it possible to have a positive relationship (friendship) with him going forward, the man who wreaked havoc on my psyche? No. Not unless and until he can see the err of his ways. As a first step towards rebuilding any semblance of a relationship or friendship, he needs to be willing to admit that his actions were wrong, plain and simple. While he can never change the past, he can change the present and future, but acknowledgement of his actions and their effects must come first. It is that understanding that will change things and preserve any possible future relationship/friendship. For me to forgive him and continue to maintain a relationship with him without his having fully understood how his actions were wrong would be detrimental to myself. What's to stop him from future abuse if he has not been held accountable for the past?

That is what I see in the case of white privilege. Until whites are willing to accept that there is racism and white privilege and they are the perpetrators, how can we begin to talk about unity? How can you ask me to have a relationship of unity and all that when you won't admit your past wrongs, much less the present?  

Yes, the ultimate goal for the human race should be to get to the root cause of the evils of the world. But you have to be willing to talk about where the evil is coming from and also WHO IS PERPETRATING THE EVIL.

Again, this is not meant to be a post about white people being evil or any of that. I am simply trying to point out that sometimes we try to sweep certain things under the rug. But the problem is the lump of dirt underneath is still there waiting to be cleaned up.

Accountability and respect.

[M-Dub]

Seen Carla, good reasoning.

Will this ever be possible? How can the future generations come to these overstandings when our current and past generations are re-writing history to suit their needs? There is a mass front that will make a fool of anyone who tries to make the claim that there is white priviledge (even though it is in fact a reality). I mean, look at television, most programs contain 90% Caucasians and even if a minority is involved in the show, they will be portrayed as less of a person than the Caucasian.

One

Jah bless

[msgal]

I know this is a bit of a symantics argument but I feel it's important.
I agree with everything Carla says, save 1 word
Perpetrate.
To perpetrate is to take an active part in making something happen. Although I think this word applies to damn near all white people, there are exceptions.
Personally, I take a very active role in fighting this huge societal flaw.  I know from experience that it is an incredibly steep up hill battle.  Honestly I'm not even sure how much difference what I do makes. But I fight just the same.
Indulge me an example.
At work a man from africa was being harrassed by a white co worker.  He was afraid to do anything about it. I made it plain to him I would back him up if he chose to fight it. I also took it a step further and made it very plain to the white man that not only would his behavior not be tolerated and why, but that I was standing up for the other man with management. I did this in front of the other co workers so there would be no question as to where I stood on this issue. The harrasment stopped.
Another co worker tried to cause problems for me at work after this. Lets just say, of the 2 of us, I'm still standing.
To let you know, this is a normal day in my life.
I don't understand how I can be considered as perpertating this evil?
I fully realize I am in the smallest minority that exists on this earth. An incredibly sad reality. I just don't see how I can be an active participant in something I fight so hard against just by virtue of my skin color.
If I misunderstand let me know.
Everything else makes perfest sense to me.
I see white privaledge every day. Most white people don't see it because to do that would mean they might have to concider the fact that it is wrong. When some one has power, no matter how they get it, they don't want to give it up.
I don't know anyone else who would rather level the playing field
That's why I don't concider white people "my people". I have nothing in common with any I've met, except the skin color.
I'm off my soap box now

Jah bless

one love

[EmpressCarla]

msgal, so glad to hear that you are not just a hearer of the word, but a doer as well.  

And perhaps you missed it, but I did say in the beginning of my post, "Please understand, this is not an indictment of all white people."

Carla

[msgal]

Seen Carla, it's just after reading and rereading the sentance the word perpetrators is in I didn't see any way to interpret it other than a blanket statement. That's why I mention the matter of simantics.
Just wanted to point out that there are exceptions to any rule.
I'll be the first to say there are very few exceptions to this one but hopefully one is a start.
bless up sistren

one love

[paco]

 thought some might be interested, more on the topic:

                    http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/whiteprivilege.htm

also, there's an excellent article on pornography on that same site.

                                                                                 

[EmpressCarla]

Thanx for posting that, Paco.