Confronting racism is not about the needs and feelings of white people
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I was leaving a corporate office building after a full day of leading workshops on how to talk about race thoughtfully and deliberately. The audience for each session had been similar to the dozens I had faced before. There was an overrepresentation of employees of color, an underrepresentation of white employees. The participants of color tended to make eye contact with me and nod – I even heard a few “Amens” – but were never the first to raise their hands with questions or comments. Meanwhile, there was always a white man eager to share his thoughts on race. In these sessions I typically rely on silent feedback from participants of color to make sure I am on the right track, while trying to moderate the loud centering of whiteness.
In the hallway an Asian American woman locked eyes with me and mouthed: “Thank you.” A black man squeezed my shoulder and muttered: “Girl, if you only knew.” A black woman stopped me, looked around cautiously to make sure no one was within earshot, and then said: “You spoke the truth. I wish I could have shared my story so you’d know how true. But this was not the place.”
This was not the place. Despite the care I take in these sessions to center people of color, to keep them safe, this still was not the place. Once again, what might have been a discussion about the real, quantifiable harm being done to people of color had been subsumed by a discussion about the feelings of white people, the expectations of white people, the needs of white people.
As I stood there, gazing off into the memory of hundreds of stifled conversations about race, I was brought to attention by a white woman. She was not nervously looking around to see who might be listening. She didn’t ask if I had time to talk, though I was standing at the door.
“Your session was really nice,” she started. “You said a lot of good things that will be useful to a lot of people.”
She paused briefly: “But the thing is, nothing you talked about today is going to help me make more black friends.”
I was reminded of one of the very first panels on race I had participated in. A black man in Seattle had been pepper-sprayed by a security guard for doing nothing more than walking through a shopping center. It had been caught on camera. A group of black writers and activists, myself included, were onstage in front of a majority-white Seattle audience, talking about the incident. Fellow panelist Charles Mudede, a brilliant writer, film-maker and economic theorist, addressed the economic mechanisms at work: this security guard had been told that his job was to protect his employers’ ability to make a profit. He had been told that his job was to keep customers who had money to spend happy and safe. And every day he was fed cultural messages about who had money and who didn’t. Who was violent and who wasn’t. Charles argued that the security guard had been doing his job. In a white supremacist capitalist system, this is what doing your job looked like.
Well, at least he was trying to argue that point. Because halfway through, a white woman stood up and interrupted him.
“Look, I’m sure you know a lot about all this stuff,” she said, hands on hips. “But I didn’t come here for an economics lesson. I came here because I feel bad about what happened to this man and I want to know what to do.”
That room, apparently, wasn’t the place either. According to this woman, this talk was not, or should not have been, about the feelings of the man who was pepper-sprayed, or those of the broader black community, which had just been delivered even more evidence of how unsafe we are in our own city. She felt bad and wanted to stop feeling bad. And she expected us to provide that to her.
At a university last month, where I was discussing the whitewashing of publishing and the need for more unfiltered narratives by people of color, a white man insisted that there was no way we were going to be understood by white people if we couldn’t make ourselves more accessible. When I asked him if all of the elements of white culture that people of color have to familiarize themselves with just to get through the day are ever modified to suit us, he shrugged and looked down at his notebook. At a workshop I led last week a white woman wondered if perhaps people of color in America are too sensitive about race. How was she going to be able to learn if we were always getting so upset at her questions?
I’ve experienced similar interruptions and dismissals more times than I can count. Even when my name is on the poster, none of these places seem like the right places in which to talk about what I and so many people of color need to talk about. So often the white attendees have decided for themselves what will be discussed, what they will hear, what they will learn. And it is their space. All spaces are.
One day, in frustration, I posted this social media status:
“If your anti-racism work prioritizes the ‘growth’ and ‘enlightenment’ of white America over the safety, dignity and humanity of people of color – it’s not anti-racism work. It’s white supremacy.”
One of the very first responses I received from a white commenter was: “OK, but isn’t it better than nothing?”
Is it? Is a little erasure better than a lot of erasure? Is a little white supremacy leaked into our anti-racism work better than no anti-racism work at all? Every time I stand in front of an audience to address racial oppression in America, I know that I am facing a lot of white people who are in the room to feel less bad about racial discrimination and violence in the news, to score points, to let everyone know that they are not like the others, to make black friends. I know that I am speaking to a lot of white people who are certain they are not the problem because they are there.
Just once I want to speak to a room of white people who know they are there because they are the problem. Who know they are there to begin the work of seeing where they have been complicit and harmful so that they can start doing better. Because white supremacy is their construct, a construct they have benefited from, and deconstructing white supremacy is their duty.
Myself and many of the attendees of color often leave these talks feeling tired and disheartened, but I still show up and speak. I show up in the hopes that maybe, possibly, this talk will be the one that finally breaks through, or will bring me a step closer to the one that will. I show up and speak for people of color who can’t speak freely, so that they might feel seen and heard. I speak because there are people of color in the room who need to hear that they shouldn’t have to carry the burden of racial oppression, while those who benefit from that same oppression expect anti-racism efforts to meet their needs first. After my most recent talk, a black woman slipped me a note in which she had written that she would never be able to speak openly about the ways that racism was impacting her life, not without risking reprisals from white peers. “I will heal at home in silence,” she concluded.
Is it better than nothing? Or is the fact that in 2019 I still have to ask myself that question every day most harmful of all?
Initial image: ‘If your anti-racism work prioritizes the ‘growth’ and ‘enlightenment’ of white America over the dignity and humanity of people of color – it’s not anti-racism work. It’s white supremacy.’ Illustration: Mikyung Lee for Guardian US
Ijeoma Oluo is a Seattle based writer and internet yeller. Her work on feminism and social justice has been featured in TIME, NY Magazine, Huffington Post, Jezebel, XOJane, SheKnows and many other places. You can find more of her work at ijeomaoluo.com
Tags
Who is online
238 visitors
'Confronting Racism Is Not About The Needs And Feelings Of White People'
So true!
"Just once I want to speak to a room of white people who know they are there because they are the problem."
Only "Whites" are racist.
"Because white supremacy is their construct, a construct they have benefited from, and deconstructing white supremacy is their duty."
It is , I did, Really ?
What a "Racist" article !
"locking eyes with you I now mouth: “Thank you.”
The most important aspect of racism in America is probably the staunch refusal of so many to recognize it.
No, It's on the ones that want to keep it going for profit !
"Workshop".
This "Person" in your article is doing what they do …..for "FREE" ?
It seems that in Ms. Oluo's myopic world, only Caucasians are "racist" and dangerous. Very sad that a relatively young biracial woman demeans her own mother's race this way and doesn't recognize that she is a racist herself.
"It seems..." to you.
That's the topic.
I'm not the topic. My comment 3 was an observation that pointed out Ms. Oluo's racism.
... or so it seems to you. The fact that it seems so to you, and to so many others, is the topic of the seed.
Some of your comments appear to be running around the same circle and aren't worthy of further responses. Good-night.
Where do you get "racist" from her comment? Where do you see her demeaning "her own mothers race"? The only ones demeaning whites are the white folk who are apparently too blind to see their own privilege. The fact is that real, quantifiable harm is being done to people of color disproportionately when compared to white people. Ms. Oluo points that out and asks why that discussion seems to always get hijacked, even by well meaning persons, to discussions of what white people expect from people of color. Ms. Oluo was in no way disrespecting her mother or white people.
“When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
I'm not sure how to take this paragraph. If she goes into a room believing that anyone who is white IS the problem...wouldn't that too be considered racism?
Granted, there were days in my career where things were said, not with white supremacist intentions, but in poor taste...trying to be cool. We would speak to those people and inform them of how hurtful their statements are. They would receive a warning. These same people would make gaffs about age or gender. It's the mistakes made by people that need to be discussed...because not all white people are white supremacists. Not all white people are the PROBLEM.
Begin with 'mistakes' made when referring to food, hair, sex...etc. Little things...and grow from there. Walking into a room believing that all white people there ARE the PROBLEM will always end in disappointment.
Not all White individuals are the problem. White people, collectively, certainly are the problem.
This first sentence paints the whole barn multiple colours with one stroke of the brush. Is this anyway to have a conversation regarding race relations .. ? I have heard since I was a young person that a conversation about race needs to be had - how does that happen, when preconceived ideas are already in the room? How does one teach racial sensitivity in a day long seminar / week long seminar .. it looked good that Starbucks shut down for a day though...
A light / white skinned individual does not a racist make, it is not part of 'our' DNA .. a white supremacist does not lurk around every corner. (but ignorant people do)
When my oldest son came home after going to Seattle to join the Black Lives Matter movement - he was more confused about race and his place in the racial scheme of things then when he left .. he knew that his white side of life had always been there for him, yet he felt that he was suppose to be a black man, which I understand, yet the message he was hearing was that all whites oppress, suppress and segregate, which is not accurate .. he and I are still working on life, we bump heads, but the conversation we have is enlightening....
Good morning Colour Me! Hope all is well for you and yours up in the great big sky country. When reading through posts like above, I get mixed feelings of disappointment, frustration, and sometimes irritation. I have a extremely convoluted ethnic background. On my mother's side I have, Mescalero Apache, Mexican, and Spaniard. My maternal grandmother was half Mexican and half Apache. My maternal grandfather was pure blooded Spaniard. On my father's side was ancestry traced back to King John the 1st of Scotland with English, Irish, and German thrown in. Growing up in a small town on the AZ/Mexico border in the 50's and 60's I lived with my maternal grandmother on the Mexican side of town. The town was largely Hispanic with the town run by a small Mormon minority that were extremely prejudiced against Mexicans. I had brown hair and medium to light skin complexion. One of the most memorable parts for me of growing up was regularly getting beat up by Mexicans for being half white and beat up by the white guys for being part Mexican. Talk about identity crisis. I do know racism first hand. Once I went into the military, I had to go to mandatory race relations classes. I would usually sit in the back and say very little and let the black guys carry on about racism from whites. Finally, the instructor noticed I did not say much and asked me why? I thought about it for a moment and repeated much of what I just said above. I ended with the fact that my Apache ancestors were here long before any of the other people's ancestors were. My Native American ancestors were largely spit on and almost wiped out by the white man, so all the rest of you can all go to Hell! You could have heard a proverbial pin drop in that room that day. I have come to terms with my mixed heritage and accept the best of both. If anybody tries to tell me that's a problem, I tell them the problem is theirs. I raised my children and grandchildren to embrace all sides of their mixed heritage. Racism knows no color, ethnicity, or nationality. Sorry for rambling. Have not brought that up in a long time.
Thank you for rambling and telling your story ..
I can only speak to being a woman in a mans 'world' .. I never allowed myself to take anything personally and gave as good as I got (it was a survival technique .. a get them before they get you kind of mentality .. but things still hurt) being white, I cannot speak to what you have experienced, nor can I speak to what my son has gone through .. I just know in my heart that I have done the best I could - raised my sons to be respectful and hopefully in doing so I have instilled a blindness that allows them to see past differences....
..
I am good Ed .. had sun shine today .. hope you are well - always good to see you here..
Peace ….
The "Civil Rights Era" began in the mid 50's with the Brown vs Board of Ed school desegregation case that reached the Supreme Court. The 1960's became a very racially tense decade with the murder of civil rights workers in Mississippi, the bombing of a black church that killed little girls, the Selma march, riots in black ghettos of major cities, assassinations of cvil rights leaders, and landmark legislation passed in the US Congress. After 1980 or so, a lot of people wanted the "civil rights era" to be over. Opposition to affirmative action grew, and some whites began to fell that they were really the victims in all this "civil rights" stuff.
We had virulent racism in this country from the mid 1600's well into the middle of the 20th century (and beyond). That's over 300 years anyway you cut it. You are not going to overcome all that and put it completely behind us in the course of a few decades. Stand back and look at a bigger picture. Racism has been a key aspect of American life "forever". The idea that everyone will get over it just like that is wishful thinking.
Maybe it sucks a little for the generations that are alive today, but it has to be worked through.
Don't kid yourself. Confronting racism is completely about the feelings of white people. Otherwise progress would have been made by now.
Most of what happens in this country is about the "feelings" of white women, specifically.
That should be a good thing, but I'm guessing that since the white man doesn't typically throw himself on the floor and beg forgiveness for being white, the writer probably isn't happy to have him speak.
There's no evidence that anyone is stifling these conversations. The moderator calls on whomever she wants. It's not the fault of white people that people of color don't feel like speaking.
Or . . . do people of color lack the spine to speak their minds when white people are in the room? Perhaps they are intimidated because they lack the intellect that white people display when considering important issues and expressing themselves. Perhaps they come to realize that any complaints they would have made about white people behind their backs is really self-indulgent, whiny bullshit. Which is it?
That all sounds pretty offensive, eh? Well, don't blame me. Blame the author.
Because if none of those things are keeping people of color from speaking, then stop making excuses for them and hold them accountable for their own actions - or lack thereof. If they have something to contribute, they can raise their hand and be called on.
Where is that system in place? In America, our system just had eight years of a black president. And we have had several black cabinet members, legislators, governors, mayors, judges and so on. In a real white supremacist system, that would be impossible. You want to say a handful of nuts are white supremacists? Fine. But if you say the system is white supremacist, you're either ignorant or a liar.
And what does capitalism have to do with it? Are black people somehow shut out of the capitalist system? How does that work? Oprah Winfrey (a black woman, if you haven't heard of her) has a net worth equal to or greater than that of President Donald Trump (famously rich white guy). Capitalism is working pretty well for her and it works great for lots of other rich black people.
No, that's actually not what she said. It's kind of ironic that while complaining about white people talking, the writer clearly isn't listening to what they say. What she said was,
So what she wants is to know what action to take. She is motivated by her feelings for the black victim (not herself), as anyone might be.
The writer clearly needs to learn to be a better listener and try to stop racistly judging white people before they even speak.
Oh, and by the by, you might be in danger in your city, but statistically, you're in far more danger from other black people than you are from white people, and it's not even a close contest.
White men are never allowed to speak about "feelings". Surely you know this.
You can't feel sorry for people and hold them accountable for their actions at the same time. And the "feelings" are all that matter.
They've prevented by Black women, I suppose?
Of course not.
White women.
In our society, white women's feelings are pretty much the only ones that matter. Other people's feelings only matter when they concur with and therefore validate the feelings of white women.
Interesting idea.
Why are there so few in positions of power?
A number of reasons, of which the whole emotions situation plays a part.
In our society, money and power are more important to men. Men can be short, ugly, bald and fat but with money and power they can still have a beautiful wife and family while the tall, handsome broke guy is still trying to get a date with no car.
Money and power don't produce the same results for women, so not as many women pursue them.
The value of men in our society is still very much attached to providing for and protecting their families. That means making money. (Wealth and power are very highly correlated.) In order to hold down a job or climb the ladder or run a company, you have to do a number of things that completely override your "feelings" at the time. You may be scared or angry or sad or whatever...but the expectation is very clear that you're going to keep that to yourself and get the job done. So we (men) raise our boys to stuff their feelings, suck it up, and get on with whatever needs doing. Lack of emotional control is seen as a character flaw and a weakness among men.
The value of women in our society is still very much attached to all things maternal and family. They judge each other on attractiveness. Why? Because attractive women will have more choices for husbands and thus a better chance of landing a good looking rich one. They judge each other on their husbands. They judge each other on their children, from academic performance to how they dress to which kid has the most innovative kale salad in their lunchbox. They judge each other on weight, wardrobe, hairstyle, home decorating, cooking, and anything else that helps them feel superior to the other woman. They judge each other on career status, but only peripherally. But women and girls are allowed and often encouraged to demonstrate and defer to their emotions, which absolutely kills their chances in most workplace settings.
Men have one job....$$$$...people expect it done, and do not care one iota how you "feel" about it.
Women are expected to be perfect at everything. Setting aside the ridiculous nature of such expectation and the horrific impact it has on young girls, the lack of focus on career and earning is a huge competitive disadvantage.
Further, people in a position understand that situation and what it takes to get there. As they say in the South...the acorn never falls far from the tree. Girls are generally raised by their mothers more than fathers, and most women are only guessing at the skills required to become wealthy and powerful. 100 years ago, well meaning mothers gave their daughters fundamentally bad advice like "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach". Now, well-meaning mothers advise their daughters to follow all rules and never make mistakes, but that it's OK to have a good cry in the breakroom if you're upset.
I've worked with kids for the last 28 years, so it's a subject of interest for me. Over that time I've seen some ridiculous parenting, but the most remarkable trends have definitely been the increasing insanity with how we raise our girls and the increasing coddling with how we raise our boys.
Define positions of power?
The generational norms have been and continue to be redefined
There are a growing number of women in 'positions of power' .. an already existent number of women, whose numbers are continuing to grow as role models (which is a 'position of power') - just because said role models and 'positions of power' are not on the news every night from the national stage, does not mean that women are trapped in an itty bitty living space, unable to break free...
Women do not have to wander the halls of Congress (which is incapable of accomplishing anything but partisan agendas) nor control the CEO position in order to be celebrated for her accomplishments as a role model and a woman of power .. once again coming back to defining 'positions of power' …..
Women role models through the 70's 80's and beyond, quite amazingly strong women in fact, showed and taught me a great deal about life, this in turn helped to shape my life .. these women were/are in 'positions of power' when their influence changes lives....
I'm very interested in the differences between men and women: innate and learned. For most of our history as a species the roles have been quite distinct... but why? We are dimorphic, with men's physiques better adapted for heavy lifting, literally and figuratively. But which came first, the chicken or the egg?
As our means become independent of physiology, should we continue differentiating, or not?
Good question. I think the "heavy lifting" capabilities of men have given them advantages in economies built on manual labor or even semi-manual labor where machines do the heaviest work but manipulating the machines still requires more strength. Those economies have been the standard in most parts of the world until very recently. Physical strength has also made them better protectors, and during much of human history, that's been very important.
I think opinions vary widely about the degree to which we should continue the differentiation. My personal, unscientific observations are that we ARE continuing to differentiate heavily. The differentiation is an established habit. It's a known quantity. There isn't really a blueprint for a non-differentiating model.
My experience is that people prefer the familiar. They especially prefer the familiar when it comes to their children. So I expect we will see those traditional roles differentiated for a very long time.
My experience is that people prefer the familiar. They especially prefer the familiar when it comes to their children. So I expect we will see those traditional roles differentiated for a very long time.
I agree with that.
My question is, Should it be so?
Previously, role differentiation was efficient. I don't think it will continue to be efficient.
For now, yeah, I think it's OK.
I agree it won't continue to be efficient, but I think it's very important we let people come to that realization in their own time.
I think people will change over time, and as enough people change we'll notice societal trends. I don't think we gain anything by attempting to force that change.
Of course. But people evolve only if confronted with alternatives. People are intrinsically conservative. They stick with what they are used to.
I think we're coming up on a great number of tech-driven societal upheavals. We'll need a lot of examples of what's possible.
I dunno. 15 years ago there wasn't a single Facebook or Twitter account. We could go to parties without people checking their iPhones or blathering on about Crossfit and Keto.
I think those tech-driven upheavals will supply examples, don't you? Technology increases possibilities.
I do think technology will continue to increase economic inequality. And while it may somewhat close the gender gap, I think it will widen the racial gap (original topic of the seed).
Too often whites at discussions on race decide for themselves what will be discussed, what they will hear, what they will learn. And it is their space. All spaces are
Until we come to the realization that there is only one race ( that being the human race ), we will be caught in this continuing cycle. We are fairly much all the same, different on the outside but strip away all the flesh and the rest is all the same color and organs.
Perhaps if one stops for a moment and looks at life through the lens of another, one may garner an appreciation for another's outlook, just a thought.
True. The problem is that no one ever changes another person's opinion. If each of us does not make the effort you're calling for, in their own minds, we will remain as we are.