"The History of White People": What it means to be white

[Moksha]

Bill O'Reilly mentioned that we're in a post-racial society when Obama became president.

Nobody in this thread is taking O'Reilly's position, though.

[House]

Hey you're back, have you seen any porch monkeys lately?

Does your momma sucking my dick while she picks the crabs out of your fathers crotch count?

[BrazenMuse]

Nobody in this thread is taking O'Reilly's position, though.

understatement?

[djmarbll]

Agreed. Part of the reason people get pulled over for DWB is indeed a matter of "race"; the values attached to "race" are driven by economic differentiation. That aside, there is a squeamishness about talking about things that aren't "nice" that may be part of the legacy of WASP standards of politeness, of comportment. And talking about someone's "race" isn't "nice" (jeez, that's a lot of quotation marks). The squeamishness is absolutely deadly because no one "wants to make a fuss" or "to offend" - the risk of being out of line is too much for many people to tolerate...do I remember you saying you hadn't seen "A Class Divided"? It's worth watching for this very reason. It's on www.pbs.org if you want to see it.

MLK's "Letter From Birmingham Jail" has an interesting commentary on moderates that came to mind as I read that piece about the babies, specifically at the end of the article:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; [...] Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

King was on point then, and still is now. The moderate or liberal whites have always seemed the most confused about the race issue. One of my closest white friends told me she felt blacks were the some of the most racist people because of how they felt about whites. And I told her that was a reaction to how they felt about a system in place that had often put them at odds with their goals. But what I liked is that she was being honest in how she felt, when many whites I'm around seem to over emphasize the "we should all be treated equal, and learn from each other's experiences/multicultural" philosophy. Defeating racism is often relegated to the conferences where the "let's learn from each other's experiences and talk about ethnic food" concept is adopted. The institutionalized aspect of racism (which is the most dangerous) is rarely ever discussed.

I'm checking out the PBS doc, btw. I watched a really interesting doc called "Race" that shows how economics was the basis of the slave trade, but that ethnicity played a role as well since Native Americans couldn't be used as slave labor.

[djmarbll]

Nobody in this thread is taking O'Reilly's position, though.

I was just mentioning the only person I recalled to mention the whole post racial thingy.

[mhd]

...when many whites I'm around seem to over emphasize the "we should all be treated equal, and learn from each other's experiences/multicultural" philosophy.. .

couldn't make this up, cats complaining about discussions about racial equality, wtf?

[rhodey]

I think that's been the problem all along though -- we just don't talk about race in an honest light. We often push it to the everybody's equal argument or its about economics. But I've never known a black man to get lynched or pulled over because he was poor. It's true that the concept of race is a smoking mirror, but the resulting tragedies that took place because of that smoking mirror is real and many don't like to look into that mirror because it shows the ugliness within ourselves.

Indeed.

[rhodey]

Exactly. It's outstanding to hear of such stories. Obviously these people are backwards. Just idiotic. It's shameful that nobody else in the restaurant took a stand for what's right.

Yes it is shameful, but this stuff happens everyday and I suspect many whites don't take that stand. My guess is that white people would have to give up a lot of comfort and privileges to truly take that stand.

[the crackhouse]

Yes it is shameful, but this stuff happens everyday and I suspect many whites don't take that stand. My guess is that white people would have to give up a lot of comfort and privileges to truly take that stand.

Go talk to yourself, you're annoying.

When an innocent is being beaten down by someone, raped by someone, injured by someone, insulted by someone this doesn't make a lot of people stop and react.

Maybe the ones who can't stand what they're witnessing, maybe the ones who already lived or witnessed the same situation will take their reponsibility and try to stop this situation.

But the matter has nothing to do with their (whatever) race, skin color, background, it's not that general assumption you try to make about any and everything. Things are not as simple as you want them to be.

Let me give you an example: You see 3 guys beating someone who's down on the floor. You don't have a cell phone, the street is empty. You want to go there and make it stop, but you're with your 6 years old kid. Will you put your kid in danger?

Idance

[the crackhouse]

I think that's been the problem all along though -- we just don't talk about race in an honest light. We often push it to the everybody's equal argument or its about economics. But I've never known a black man to get lynched or pulled over because he was poor. It's true that the concept of race is a smoking mirror, but the resulting tragedies that took place because of that smoking mirror is real and many don't like to look into that mirror because it shows the ugliness within ourselves.

Sorry Marbll, maybe that's my bad english, but I don't get what is this "ugliness within ourselves"?


Idance

[jimmymack-2000]

My wife and I had a local bar we frequented in our old neighborhood in Toronto. It was really a sports bar (memorabilia on the walls, barrels of peanuts that you helped yourself to and dumped the shells on the floor when you were done, greasy fried-foods menu, etc.), but it was a convenient 5-minute walk from our place and the staff there were friendly enough.

One night, she and I were sitting at the bar. There were a few empty stools to our left, and at that end of the bar the only other customers were a group of 3-4 white, early-30s guys. To our right, another empty chair, and a solitary black guy, probably mid-20s or so. The white guys were engaged in the kind of loud, raucous, sometimes profane banter that comes from a few pitchers, while the black guy was drinking a pint and watching the TV.

About 15 minutes after we'd sat down, ordered drinks and started enjoying them, the black guy starts coughing and clearing his throat. A minute or two later, some muttering/verbal tics started...I'm thinking perhaps Tourettes, or maybe even schizophrenia. Once or twice, the f-word slipped out.

All of a sudden the bartender is over, and the group at the other end of the bar is all quiet. "OK, sorry, you're going to have to leave," says the bartender (white guy, early '30s as well).

"Why?" asks the black guy. "Because, you're disturbing the other customers" retorts the barkeep.

"What? Disturbing the other customers? Get out of here!"

"Seriously, you're gonna have to leave."

"For what? I want to know"

"You're sitting here, swearing, disturbing people...leave, please, before I have to throw you out."

Here's where I come in. I say to the bartender, "Hey, I'm sitting right next to him and he's not bothering me." He looks a bit confused, then angry.

"I want him to leave, that's all."

"I really don't think he's doing anything wrong, man. He's not swearing any more than those guys at the other end of the bar, and he's doing it a lot more quietly."

Meanwhile, the black guy is gathering up his stuff, muttering to himself. "Bye, asshole," he says on his way out.

"You happy now?" I say to the bartender. "OK, smart guy, you get the hell out too!"

We left our half-finished drinks on the bar, never to return. I only regret I'd paid (and tipped) when they arrived.

[Bill Blake]

That sucks.

[dj-chefron]

Black by Choice Sister Citizen
By Melissa Harris-Lacewell
President Obama created a bit of a stir in early April when he completed his Census form. In response to the question about racial identity the president indicated he was "Black, African American or Negro." Despite having been born of a white mother and raised in part by white grandparents, Obama chose to identify himself solely as black even though the Census allows people to check multiple answers for racial identity.


This choice disappointed some who have fought to ensure that multiracial people have the right to indicate their complex racial heritage. It confused some who were surprised by his choice not to officially recognize his white heritage. It led to an odd flurry of obvious political stories confirming that Obama was, indeed, the first African-American president.

When Obama marked his Census form, he offered another lesson in what has been an intensive if unintentional seminar on the social construction of race. In just a few years, decades of multiple racial formations have been projected onto him at hyperspeed; it's a bit like watching those nature films that show the growth of an apple tree from a seed in just thirty seconds. When Hillary Clinton held a significant lead among black voters, media outlets regularly questioned if Obama was "black enough" to earn African-American electoral support. When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright dominated the news cycle, the question shifted to whether Obama was "too black" to garner white votes. By the final months of the campaign, Obama's opponents charged that he was a noncitizen, a Muslim and a terrorist. In less than two years a single body had been subjected to definitions ranging from insufficiently black, to far too black, to somehow foreign and frightening.

But Obama did more than disrupt standard definitions of blackness; he created a definitional crisis for whiteness. Imagine for a moment that a young American falls into a Rip Van Winkle sleep in 1960. He awakens suddenly in 2008 and learns that we are in the midst of a historic presidential election between a white and a black candidate. He learns that one candidate is a Democrat, a Harvard Law School graduate, a lecturer at the conservative University of Chicago Law School. He also discovers that this candidate is married to his first wife, and they have two children who attend an exclusive private school. His running mate is an Irish Catholic. The other candidate is a Republican. He was an average student who made his mark in the military. This candidate has been married twice, and his running mate is a woman whose teenage daughter is pregnant out of wedlock.

Now ask our recently awakened American to guess which candidate is white and which is black. Remember, his understanding of race and politics was frozen in 1960, when a significant number of blacks still identified themselves as Republican, an Ivy League education was a marker of whiteness and military service a common career path for young black men. Remember that he would expect marriage stability among whites and sexual immorality to mark black life. It's entirely possible that our Rip would guess that Obama was the white candidate and McCain the black one.

By displaying all these tropes of traditional whiteness, Obama's candidacy disrupted the very idea of whiteness. Suddenly whiteness was no longer about educational achievement, family stability or the command of spoken English. One might argue that the folksy interventions of Sarah Palin were a desperate attempt to reclaim and redefine whiteness as a gun-toting ordinariness that eschews traditional and elite markers of achievement.

Obama's whiteness in this sense is frightening and strange for those invested in believing that racial categories are stable, meaningful and essential. Those who yearn for a postracial America hoped Obama had transcended blackness, but the real threat he poses to the American racial order is that he disrupts whiteness, because whiteness has been the identity that defines citizenship, access to privilege and the power to define national history.

In 1998 Toni Morrison wrote that Bill Clinton was the first "black president" because he "displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas." Ten years later the man who truly became America's first black president displayed few of these tropes. Instead he was a scholarly, worldly, health food-eating man from Hawaii. In this sense, Obama was the white candidate in 2008, and a substantial portion of white voters preferred Obama's version of whiteness to that of McCain and Palin.

Which brings us back to Obama's Census choice. Despite his legitimate claims on whiteness, he chose to call himself black. As historian Nell Painter documents in her new book The History of White People, white identity was a heavily policed and protected border for most of American history. A person born to an African parent and a white parent could be legally enslaved in America until 1865. From 1877 until 1965 that person would have been subject to segregation in public accommodations, schools, housing and employment. In 1896 the Supreme Court established the doctrine of separate but equal in the case of Homer Plessy, a New Orleans Creole of color whose ancestry was only a small fraction African. President Obama's Census self-identification was a moment of solidarity with these black people and a recognition that the legal and historical realities of race are definitive, that he would have been subject to all the same legal restrictions had he been born at another time. So in April, Obama did as he has done repeatedly in his adult life: he embraced blackness, with all its disprivilege, tumultuous history and disquieting symbolism. He did not deny his white parentage, but he acknowledged that in America, for those who also have African heritage, having a white parent has never meant becoming white.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/harris-lacewell

[rhodey]

My wife and I had a local bar we frequented in our old neighborhood in Toronto. It was really a sports bar (memorabilia on the walls, barrels of peanuts that you helped yourself to and dumped the shells on the floor when you were done, greasy fried-foods menu, etc.), but it was a convenient 5-minute walk from our place and the staff there were friendly enough.

One night, she and I were sitting at the bar. There were a few empty stools to our left, and at that end of the bar the only other customers were a group of 3-4 white, early-30s guys. To our right, another empty chair, and a solitary black guy, probably mid-20s or so. The white guys were engaged in the kind of loud, raucous, sometimes profane banter that comes from a few pitchers, while the black guy was drinking a pint and watching the TV.

About 15 minutes after we'd sat down, ordered drinks and started enjoying them, the black guy starts coughing and clearing his throat. A minute or two later, some muttering/verbal tics started...I'm thinking perhaps Tourettes, or maybe even schizophrenia. Once or twice, the f-word slipped out.

All of a sudden the bartender is over, and the group at the other end of the bar is all quiet. "OK, sorry, you're going to have to leave," says the bartender (white guy, early '30s as well).

"Why?" asks the black guy. "Because, you're disturbing the other customers" retorts the barkeep.

"What? Disturbing the other customers? Get out of here!"

"Seriously, you're gonna have to leave."

"For what? I want to know"

"You're sitting here, swearing, disturbing people...leave, please, before I have to throw you out."

Here's where I come in. I say to the bartender, "Hey, I'm sitting right next to him and he's not bothering me." He looks a bit confused, then angry.

"I want him to leave, that's all."

"I really don't think he's doing anything wrong, man. He's not swearing any more than those guys at the other end of the bar, and he's doing it a lot more quietly."

Meanwhile, the black guy is gathering up his stuff, muttering to himself. "Bye, asshole," he says on his way out.

"You happy now?" I say to the bartender. "OK, smart guy, you get the hell out too!"

We left our half-finished drinks on the bar, never to return. I only regret I'd paid (and tipped) when they arrived.

So based on the example above do you think the black guy was being mistreated on the basis on color?

[rhodey]

When an innocent is being beaten down by someone, raped by someone, injured by someone, insulted by someone this doesn't make a lot of people stop and react

Oh really?

Maybe the ones who can't stand what they're witnessing, maybe the ones who already lived or witnessed the same situation will take their reponsibility and try to stop this situation.

So now you are covering both bases I see...

But the matter has nothing to do with their (whatever) race, skin color, background, it's not that general assumption you try to make about any and everything. Things are not as simple as you want them to be.

There we go again,with the "It's complicated" card. When you witness a racist act do you do/say anything or not? No need for you to talk for other people. What do YOU do, Crackhouse?

Let me give you an example: You see 3 guys beating someone who's down on the floor. You don't have a cell phone, the street is empty. You want to go there and make it stop, but you're with your 6 years old kid. Will you put your kid in danger?

Idance

So you give an example of someone who obviously would be at a dis advantage to help someone to prove what? That most white people who witness racism white supremacy are not prepared to assist?

[jimmymack-2000]

So based on the example above do you think the black guy was being mistreated on the basis on color?

Either the color of his skin, or the functioning of his mind. Either way, as Bill said, it sucks.

[206REFUGEE]

Does your momma sucking my dick while she picks the crabs out of your fathers crotch count?

This is what happens when one party cannot deal with the intellectual capacity of another.

Usually, the ego of the one with the lowest intellectual level descends into name calling which leads to loud voices which leads to violence.

Dude have an overblown false sense of self on DHP. He LIVES to defend a dysfunctional illusionory sense of himself on a messageboard where NOBODY really give a fuck about him.

In reality...he's PATHETIC and Mentally decaying.

sad

**********************

WHAT UP RHODNEY!!

[the crackhouse]

Oh really?

Not sure what you mean?

So now you are covering both bases I see...

Again, I really don't see what you mean?

There we go again,with the "It's complicated" card. When you witness a racist act do you do/say anything or not? No need for you to talk for other people. What do YOU do, Crackhouse?

Don't try to make it simple, it's my argument here!
What would I do is absolutly of zero interest in this discussion. Because the situation is unique, the characters involved are unique, the time frame is unique, you can't generalize.

Plus, I'm an individual, and questionning my reaction to that is like using 1 sample to create a statistic.

Just admit it, it's complex and complicated.

So you give an example of someone who obviously would be at a dis advantage to help someone to prove what?

Yes I do, it is ONE example showing that you cannot always react easily when you're witnessing an agression.

Again you try to simplify my example to put it in a general view that would become an evidence. You're not going in depht.

That most white people who witness racism white supremacy are not prepared to assist?

Again, you're following your agenda. Where did I write anything about white people in this post?

And 2 lines before you were saying "No need for you to talk for other people.".

Stop playing your game by your rules and try to expand your opinion based on others people input (and insight).

Idance

[the crackhouse]

This is what happens when one party cannot deal with the intellectual capacity of another.

Usually, the ego of the one with the lowest intellectual level descends into name calling which leads to loud voices which leads to violence.

Dude have an overblown false sense of self on DHP. He LIVES to defend a dysfunctional illusionory sense of himself on a messageboard where NOBODY really give a fuck about him.

In reality...he's PATHETIC and Mentally decaying.

sad

**********************

WHAT UP RHODNEY!!

We are not taking intellectual levels into account on DHP.

You have a lower member status, therefore you're wrong and inferior.

No skin color involved.

Idance

[BrazenMuse]

Oh really?



So now you are covering both bases I see...



There we go again,with the "It's complicated" card. When you witness a racist act do you do/say anything or not? No need for you to talk for other people. What do YOU do, Crackhouse?



So you give an example of someone who obviously would be at a dis advantage to help someone to prove what? That most white people who witness racism white supremacy are not prepared to assist?

The world IS complicated.
In the situation he describes, not acting directly has nothing to do with race and everything to do with protecting your own child. Indirect action might involve getting off that street and sending help once you can...

Without the child factor, there is still the reality of whether you are ABLE to assist or not...got a weak heart? an injury? not a fighter? Direct action may not be an option. Does that make it racist? No.

[rhodey]

This is what happens when one party cannot deal with the intellectual capacity of another.

Usually, the ego of the one with the lowest intellectual level descends into name calling which leads to loud voices which leads to violence.

Dude have an overblown false sense of self on DHP. He LIVES to defend a dysfunctional illusionory sense of himself on a messageboard where NOBODY really give a fuck about him.

In reality...he's PATHETIC and Mentally decaying.

sad

**********************



WHAT UP RHODNEY!!

Greetings 206,

Have the white people here given you any clues yet about what it means to be white?

[206REFUGEE]

Greetings 206,

Have the white people here given you any clues yet about what it means to be white?

NO!

But, I can tell ya. I got PISSED off Thursday in one of my classes. This White female Racist White Supremacit professor goes on to talk about ....


VIRGINITY

and all that it entails.....nowdays white gals are selling it to the highest bidder.


Like somebody didn't superman that ho already.


Then she went on to say how minorities and black girls do not get the luxury of ..."being considered the esteemed virgin" by our society.

I'm getting sick of this Brawd......she's a dyke with serious issues against men and it seems she loves to denigrated blacks and minorities.

Classic..White people.

[rhodey]

The world IS complicated.
In the situation he describes, not acting directly has nothing to do with race and everything to do with protecting your own child. Indirect action might involve getting off that street and sending help once you can...

Without the child factor, there is still the reality of whether you are ABLE to assist or not...got a weak heart? an injury? not a fighter? Direct action may not be an option. Does that make it racist? No.

Well I disagree. I suspect the complicated card is often played when attempting to evade truth.


How did the conversation so quickly shift from nonwhite men being asked to give their seat to white people and then subsequently getting booted out of an establishment to... talking about walking around with children and protecting children?

The lone reaction I see here to the incident is "That's messed up?"


But does anyone ask?

HOW is it messed up?

WHY is it messed up?

What am I doing about this mess?


So back to the whole complexity issue.

What does having to protect children and having no cell phone, have to do with the multitudes of "good meaning" white folks that see racism white-supremacy operate every day and say of do NOTHING to stop the system from functioning.?

This includes saying nothing to the racist white supremacists themselves, or even to their nonwhite "closest friend," who I suspect many times is completely ignorant to being mistreated?

This is what I mean when I say that I suspect many whites withhold information from non whites.

Information that would be constructive to nonwhites.

Do you see how easily "complexity" can be introduced into any conversation in order to derail it and to cause confusion?

So now instead of talking about racism white supremacy we are finding the different ways thatwhite people are not in any position to lend a helping hand?

I believe deception one of the chief tools of the racist white supremacist, the other being violence.

[the crackhouse]

Well I disagree. I suspect the complicated card is often played when attempting to evade truth.


How did the conversation so quickly shift from nonwhite men being asked to give their seat to white people and then subsequently getting booted out of an establishment to... talking about walking around with children and protecting children?

The lone reaction I see here to the incident is "That's messed up?"


But does anyone ask?

HOW is it messed up?

WHY is it messed up?

What am I doing about this mess?


So back to the whole complexity issue.

What does having to protect children and having no cell phone, have to do with the multitudes of "good meaning" white folks that see racism white-supremacy operate every day and say of do NOTHING to stop the system from functioning.?

This includes saying nothing to the racist white supremacists themselves, or even to their nonwhite "closest friend," who I suspect many times is completely ignorant to being mistreated?

This is what I mean when I say that I suspect many whites withhold information from non whites.

Information that would be constructive to nonwhites.

Do you see how easily "complexity" can be introduced into any conversation in order to derail it and to cause confusion?

So now instead of talking about racism white supremacy we are finding the different ways thatwhite people are not in any position to lend a helping hand?

I believe deception one of the chief tools of the racist white supremacist, the other being violence.

Once again, you're trying the populist speech of "no, it can't be THAT complicated", and also you introduce the "whites" as questionnable people, they are suspects, but why can't "non whites" be suspected too?

Do you think intellectuals are avoiding complexity? Do you think anysituation is simple?
Even 1+1 isn't always 2.

You are really not down with giving the discussion a push to something interesting. IMO you're always tryting to get back at your agenda and all the doubts you offer us is some egocentric shit as: "I don't know."

Try to understand that if you wish to get some info from white folks here, try not to insult them at first sight.
And what if they don't feel guilty because you're totally off reality? Doubt and ears are great tools to understand bits of any subject.

Idance

[rhodey]

Once again, you're trying the populist speech of "no, it can't be THAT complicated", and also you introduce the "whites" as questionnable people, they are suspects, but why can't "non whites" be suspected too?

Because nonwhites don't have the power to be racist.
We dont make the supreme laws.
We dont print the supreme money.
We dont own the supreme land and establishments.
We dont have a supreme military.
We dont control the supreme media
We dont control the supreme image of God.
We dont control the supreme concept of beauty.

Do you think intellectuals are avoiding complexity? Do you think anysituation is simple?

I think logic comes with the universe.

Even 1+1 isn't always 2.

Oh really? When would 1 +1 not equal 2?

You are really not down with giving the discussion a push to something interesting. IMO you're always tryting to get back at your agenda and all the doubts you offer us is some egocentric shit as: "I don't know."

Oh I thought you were interested in proving how clever you could be?

My agenda is to replace racism white supremacy with justice. What is yours?

Try to understand that if you wish to get some info from white folks here, try not to insult them at first sight.

See here's the problem, I suspect that talking truthfully about racism white supremacy is "insulting" to white people and embarrassing to a whole bunch of non white people.

And what if they don't feel guilty because you're totally off reality? Doubt and ears are great tools to understand bits of any subject.

If guilt plays no part with replacing racism white supremacy justice then I could care less about it. Why did you ask about guilt? Are you feeling it?