Commentary
Issue Commentary Back Next

Commentary
Essay
by Joshua Henle

We should be made when other people deny the facts of racism

I write in response to Ian Bennett whose letter in last week's Review  objected to the notion that a person be viewed as racist simply because s/he is white. I sympathize with but disagree with the position expressed in that letter.

Discussions on race need to come to the place where we face the fact that, if you were born and raised as a 'white' person in America, you are probably prejudiced, and that you have probably had innumerable opportunities, many which you didn't even notice, to translate that prejudice into racist expression, that is, to use it to your advantage, even if merely in so subtle a means as increased self-esteem. America is a racist country, we should be able to recognize this at this point, and its racism does not originate with its citizens of color. In America, racism has always been a white problem. There are reactionary forms of anti-white racism, but they are reactionary, not original. Consider: what does the identity 'white' mean? All that it means is 'not-black.' And, politically, all that 'black' means is 'not-white.' But to whose advantage, collectively, are these distinctions made? Historically and materially, 'white' people have always had a great deal more power, and so the race line has always functioned to their advantage. You may ask people of color to pretend that white people are not racist, but it will always be pretending unless white people first stop pretending that they are 'white.'

Membership in the club of white identity has always been a fluid thing; originally, in America, only 'Natives,' that is, Anglos whose parents were born here were truly white, as defined primarily against the Irish, and in the South, Africans. Then, with the next wave of immigration, the Irish became white, and Eastern Europeans and Jews were excluded. These last groups have arguably become white since then, and today some would say Asians (though still far from it) have also begun to cross this line. Today, whiteness is defined primarily against Africans and in the West, Latinos. 'Whiteness' then, means nothing if not defined against (and defended against) some form of 'blackness.' Whoever the occupants of the two terms turn out to be is a matter of fate, a matter of who is born into the position of power.

The problem with facing racism, for white people, and I know this from first hand experience, is that it incurs a great deal of guilt. This guilt, which is often resisted, is the same pride that was previously invisible when no one was calling you on racism. James Baldwin writes, ".. . a vast amount of the energy that goes into what we call the Negro problem is produced by the white man's profound desire not to be judged by those who are not white, not to be seen as he is." Understand, at the very least, that the effect of white identity is increased self-esteem, which we don't want to admit to, to own. Liberals, especially, don't want to admit to having internalized the pride and arrogance that goes with power, but it inevitable, it is structural, and therefore, in a way, it is 'not our fault.' But it becomes our fault the longer we live without facing these truths.

Liberal guilt, of course, is not productive. In fact, it is simply a negative version of the excessive feeling of responsibility which white Americans have felt for their circumstances, for their material success, or at the very least, for the 'greatness' of the nation (which has always depended, to some degree, on oppression). Guilt is a product of identification with power, although negatively. It ends if we face the fact that we were born into a bad situation, taught lies, and trained to be blind to our own power. If we see that power, and begin to fight it, and so to separate ourselves from it, we will find both guilt and our sense of ourselves as 'white' will fade.

White Americans should be angry, yes, and deeply sad as well, but not when people of color decry racism. We should be mad when others try to deny the facts of racism, and so drag us back into complicity with American history. We should be furious at the power structure which has lied to us in an attempt to turn us into another generation guilty of exploitation, which has tried to pass on the crimes of slavery and Jim Crow onto us, suggesting that we find an new and ingenious way of convincing ourselves that 'white' means 'honorable.' And we should bleed out the substance of this guilt, through personal and political engagement. We should cry and scream about it. We should cry until the substance of our white identifications is gone, for it is in those identifications we have indeed become what we all purport to hate. White people can overcome the racism which is the curse of their birth, but it will mean perceiving the meaning of whiteness, and going beyond denial to guilt, and beyond guilt to sadness and rage. In America, the notion that anyone can be 'non-racist' is like a hippie saying 'I love everybody.' It's a beautiful idea, but unrealistic; the reality is that one cannot be 'non-racist,' one can only be 'anti-racist.' Racism, like any addiction to power, is similar to alcoholism. It is something which never goes away, that must be guarded against for the rest of one's life. That doesn't mean one cannot be healthy and experience mutuality across lines of difference, but it is a serious and difficult project.

I also object to the notion, expressed in Ian Bennett's letter, that racial epithets are of 'equal' strength when uttered by people who occupy different positions in the power structure. This is an opinion that is completely ahistorical. You would find it difficult to hold this position if you weren't white. Let's say my grandfather killed your grandfather and got away with it. Cast against the history of our families, if I call you a name, and you call me a name, which of us is adding insult to injury? I may object that I am not personally responsible for the crimes of my grandfather, just as one might claim not to be responsible for the crimes of racism. However, using racial epithets summons not just the distinction of black and white, but the history of that distinction. It evokes a history, and where do we find ourselves in that picture?

I sympathize with your position because I have felt the same defensiveness. And I haven't gotten it under control yet myself; it is immensely painful to realize that all your life you've been fed lies and have made those lies into part of you so deep you didn't know it was there. My experience makes me think that the need to assert the possibility of a non-racist white identity means one is unconsciously defending white privilege. It is to wear the shoes of power and pretend you are barefoot. But then, if one is born with shoes, it's no surprise they are difficult to notice.

But I don't think the situation is hopeless. Just because one is born into this position, one isn't stuck. It just requires a personal commitment to escape, to see one's self from another perspective and then to transform. In the same way that it was possible for the Irish to become white, it is possible for whites to become something else. One important step in this process, I believe is recognizing that when people complain about racism, they are usually not crying wolf. It is not crazy to see racism everywhere; what is 'crazy' is to deny it. We need to face our own racism. Only then can we make the gesture sincerely, of joining the 'human' race.

Joshua Henle is a Hampshire College senior. He graduated from Oberlin High School.

Oberlin

Copyright © 1997, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 125, Number 22, April 25, 1997

Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.