When discussing race, white privilege, and oppression with Americans, many people will be in agreement with you when you discuss the historical, explicitly tangible discriminatory laws of our very recent past. It is difficult to argue with the facts, injustice, disequilibrium, oppression, and horror of American slavery, redlining, Jim Crow, and lynchings (someone please tell me why the town Liberty University is located in has not changed it’s name? But I digress). It is easy to discuss this with people and convince them of its existence because it has been historically documented, but more importantly, it satisfies our human need to categorize anything and everything.
We do this instinctively, much of the time without giving it much thought. We size up individuals, institutions, or situations; we label and categorize them, and then often dismiss them. Much of labeling and categorizing is a natural human proclivity, in fact, those who read this blog know that much of my humorous writing is predicated on categories and exploitations of the idiosyncrasies within each one. Yet, be mindful that it is also our human nature to sin, be greedy, be lustful, bitter, manipulate others, or whatever pet sin your soul may nurture. To fall back on a human nature argument to justify harmful stereotyping and prejudice is a justification of sin.
Fast forward to our present cultural context, and if you are in a discussion with someone regarding racism, particularly in a Conservative context, but it happens anywhere, and you will often hear a version of one of two responses. One: “Racism is over in America, we erased it legislatively.” As Christians, we know and understand that racism, like lust, greed, or gossip will never be eradicated because it is sin that is part of the human condition. Response two, with Christians at least, is frequently in response to a discussion of racism always being with us…. Two: “There’s no such thing as institutional racism, it is just individual people, or pockets or communities perpetuating it in isolated situations.”
Response two appeals to our tendency for categorization for a number of reasons, all of which could be a post in itself, but I would like to point a few out. First, it removes us from responsibility in addressing it, because it places the problem outside of ourselves and our contexts. IE- “I am not a racist, and my friends aren’t, but if I hear of it happening at my work with HR I will disagree with it.” or “Yes, those skinheads on tv make me mad too, not in my backyard!!!” Second, by placing the problem “out there,” it dichotomizes it in a way that we can label other people, communities or entire states as racist and dismiss them from our purview.
By labeling and dismissing the problem, we inherently are not examining our own contexts, buying habits, thought patterns, or comments for issues that may be latent to us. It is also ignoring the theme of social justice woven through Scripture where we are called to advocate for those who are being oppressed. If that is a new idea to you, do a thematic study in the OT about the preceding incident for when Israel was severely judged and the prophets basically went ballistic; there is almost always a theme of ignoring justice issues. Ask yourself… “If I believe justice issues (of all sorts, they follow all populations) are sin issues, am I contributing to the problem by labeling it as “someone else’s problem?” Or, “Am I contributing to the problem by denying it’s existence because it brings me comfort?” “Is it easier to blame the individual or another group than it is to examine my own prejudice?”
I am of course, not doing justice to such a weighty issue in the previous paragraph, but my intention is to spark your thinking. Where White Americans often become hung up on this and other issues, is with the concept of White privilege and institutional racism. We are uncomfortable with the idea of us (If you do not know me personally, I am as white as it gets, so I am speaking of myself) having inherent privileges, because that goes against our individuality and work ethic. If I insinuate that you have privilege, to some, you are insinuating that they do not or have not worked hard for their position in life. Tim Keller is helpful in understanding this in an illustration he frequently uses to point out how a child simply by being born into his family has a hundred times better chance at “making it,” than huge pockets of kids in the same city.
When thinking through the issue of privilege, take a minute and ask yourself the following questions by Peggy McIntosh, and myself. If you would like a copy of the entire list and article, please let me know and I would be happy to email it. I have found these to be immensely helpful personally as a Mom of a child of another race, a Pastor’s wife, and as a Christian social worker. People often have strong reactions to trying to think through these questions, I would strongly encourage you to think through the questions more than once. Some may apply, some may not.
If can, if I wish, arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
When I look at the US Congress I can be certain the majority of the politicians will look like me.
If I am asked to be in a brochure for my college, my face will not be duplicated in every major’s brochure because of my race.
If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.
I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
I can be relatively certain that if I choose to live in a highly ranked school district my children’s teachers, classmates, and administrator’s will be the same race.
I can teach my sons to drive without having to give lengthy lecture on the necessity of keeping their hands at 12 and 9 on the steering wheel.
I can turn on the tv or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.
I do not have to put forth any effort to buy my daughter a doll that matches her skin tone.
If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.
I can go into a music store and count on finding music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair.
I can go into any drug store and find hair products that will not damage my hair.
Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.
I can purchase a cell phone contract instead of a pay per use cell, and be fairly certain I will not be denied based on my zip code.
I can purchase house insurance that matches the value of my home regardless of what neighborhood I reside in.
I can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes, not do my hair before I leave the house, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals , the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.
I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
If my children have a fast food job and are slow at the register, it is not seen as a reflection on my entire race.
I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.
I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the “person in charge” I will be facing a person of my race.
I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
If my day, week, ,or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones.
I can pretty sure that when my children begin dating they will not face pressure from their boyfriend or girlfriend’s parents to break up due to race.
*Most questions were taken from the Peggy McIntosh article, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.”
good post amy. two things i noticed reading through it
1) it was helpful reading the questions, as they did a good job to break down labels and give real life situations. this is a similar task bible teachers are faced with, and you actuated this well.
2) You wrote, ‘Ask yourself… “If I believe justice issues (of all sorts, they follow all populations) are sin issues, am I contributing to the problem …’ and I think that is a great question to ask. I know if my own mind I don’t always think of justice issues as sin issues. I see them as evil and wrong, but the complete picture hasn’t clicked yet.
In a book we had to read in seminary, I became aware of what is called “institutional racism,” a concept with which I had much skepticism. After reading the book, which advocated the term “racialized” rather than “racist.” My Mac dictionary defines racism as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”
I’m less uncomfortable with the concept of institutional racism than I was previously, but oftentimes I am nervous about it because it gets propagandized and exploited for the sake of legislation in favor of a people group.
Ron Paul offers the idea in his book, “Revolution,” that individualism and the notion of protecting individual freedom is the best method of progress in eradicating racism. The essential argument is that since the State tends to treat people as “people groups,” it breeds racialization (he uses the term “racism”). When we move toward treating each other as individuals, race will become less a factor in choosing who we ride elevators with, who we choose to be on the cover of our college brochure, who we hire, who we marry, who we let our kids play with, and where we buy a house.
Good post. I love the thoughts.
There are just so many places for racism to hide. While I more or less constantly try to root out that of my loved ones, this is a strong reminder for me to try to find where it hides within me.
The irony of the Political Correctness movement from about 15 years ago (and the backlash persists today) is that the counter-feelings and sentiments became that much more sophisticated and educated-sounding.
There’s a strange arrogance in presuming to sound authoritative about the woes of a particular group of people. The roots of this presumption are varied and deep, running from the perceived obviousness of a lot of the “problems” and “symptoms” of a specific culture, to a sort of common consciousness of the Path to Success in America about which, well, if you you’re not prepared to man up and follow it, well, I can’t help you. I mean, you don’t even try to sound like “us.”
After reading my previous comment, I had a few cut-off sentences. What I meant to write was that after reading that particular book, I’m less skeptical of institutional racism, though I prefer the term racialized.
In any case, I think that while each of us has our own contibution to the problem, it is not always true that because one is white, he is part of the problem. Or if one is not actively proactive against racism, that doesn’t mean he is contributing to the problem. Often I hear “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” You can’t apply that to every problem. Awareness is definitely important, but there are things beyond our individual control.
there’s a potential for defensiveness in your point, doug, although i recognize why you’re saying it. we can reject, i think the more crass elements of “white guilt” but still be fully cognizant, both as Americans and more importantly as Christians, that there is much work to be done. i don’t think that the things J commands us to be doing are full-on “if you’re not part of the solution you’re a part of the problem,” but very generally, they kind of are.
Defensive, maybe. Cautious would be how I describe it. But thanks for pointing it out.
no i’m not calling you out. i’m just saying that someone looking to pin you down might detect hints of it there…
Doug, try to not compartmentalism things into whether or not you hold some sort of responsibility. That is starting inherently from a position in which, you may be subtly trying to find the least amount of the problem that you are responsible for. The point is less figuring out whether or not you are a racist, and more of becoming cognizant that we hold privilege based upon our race. In American culture, we start out four gates ahead on the track.
I have not read Ron Pauls’ book, but I highly doubt he is correct on that, because racism is a sin issue. It will surface either way. Pushing individualism denies the inherent commands in Scripture towards unity and community. We also lose the beauty of collective culture and community, something which many white people have not had the privilege to experience.
Yes, we have individual rights, and etc., but that is a very Western, and particularly American perspective. An eastern perspective is much more communal by nature. Each has its own inherent positive and negative aspects.
If we start by trying to cut and slice how much we think we are responsible for or how racist or not we may be, that is inherently pushing the question outside of ourselves.
not to mention that even glancing over stories like Good Samaritan in your mind shows you exactly how G feels about “responsibility” in the secular sense. the Samaritan had less “responsibility” than Dude and Other Dude who were Dude’s countrymen. and yet…Dude was everyone’s responsibility.
Good post Amy. As you know very well, these thoughts are prominent in our hearts and minds right now.
My thought is this…everybody is racist or “racialized” (earlier response) to some degree. The only removal of that particular sin (and any other) is the life-changing Gospel of Jesus. Certain persons might have less of a proclivity toward racism because they’ve lived in a diverse context, for example. But like men struggling with sexual issues more often than women and dudes not getting tripped up on gossip so much, less proclivity does not mean thorough eradication. What do you think?
If racism, like any other sin, is not completely absent in any person (or better stated, does not exist in seminal form), then the key becomes humbly addressing oppressive mindsets/stereotypes within one’s self in relation to the Gospel. Then and only then, can the speck be removed from another “color-blind” person. Not only in regards to race, but finances, clothes, nation, language, whatever. Pride in self fuels all those fires, but humility in the Gospel is the wet blanket that simmers them down. One of the worst ways of dealing with this sin, as you addressed so well, is to practice the fundamentalist cultural policy of separationism (haha! had to). If you separate not only yourself from acknowledging propensity toward sin (in this case, racism), but those who are closely connected to you, then you remain “safe.” The paradox of that type of separationism will eventually consume such persons.
thank you Jon, I like the aspect of tying it into the Gospel. The more I think through it, the more I just see pride as the root of all of my own sin.
Joel.. the use of dude literally made me laugh out loud.
“Pushing individualism denies the inherent commands in Scripture towards unity and community. ”
Ron Paul’s particular comment was not to isolate individualism as more important than community. Rather, it was to shed light on the idea that viewing people as part of a community, rather than as individuals, breeds stereotypes and prejudice based on the group one belongs to and not based on each person’s merit and value as an individual.
Yes, we are to seek and pursue community, but to view people as a member of a community when we disregard their individuality is problematic, and indicative of the sinfulness of racism. Racism is built upon treating somebody as part of a larger group rather than on an individual basis.
It is also a stereotype to believe that white people are privileged, because it is not true of every white person in all situations in America. I have a white friend who was “underprivileged” in a black community. I’m also “underprivileged” in Christian academia (says my seminary prof) because I’ve got two “strikes” against me: I’m male and I’m very white. While historically white people held the advantage, that doesn’t always hold true, and thus now we have a “white stereotype.”
I could be wrong, and I’m sure I could explain it better, but that’s also a problem in the wrong direction.
You can always find the small numbers of exceptions to anything at anytime. It is helpful to not view white privilege as a belief, but as something that is either proven by facts or not. When you look at data from people of just about every political and religious persuasion, it is quite well evidenced.
Looking for the exception is missing the big picture of what I was getting at above, it is putting the problem ‘out there’ and removing you from responsibility.
Racism is massively bigger than labeling, outgroups, or stereotyping. It is, at the core, about power. Who has power, and who does not. While your friend who grew up as the white dude in the black neighborhood experienced stereotyping, it is not the same thing. It is about constructs of power. Were your friend removed from the neighborhood and placed in another, the lack of power would likely not follow. Yet, when you pull a black person from a black neighborhood, and place them in a different context, they still experience lack of power. If it’s a company, they may be viewed with suspicion of not being qualified and being a sympathy hire, if it’s a white neighborhood will people not experienced with race, they will be seen as representing their whole race.
If they leave the black neighborhood, chances are 99.99999% that their political representation will be white. That is the difference between the two, because while you can always find the stories of rural white poor, or the Eminem character in Detroit, those narratives do not translate into broader society, they exist in the microcosm.
yes microcosm!
I would like to say keep up the good work Amy. I found this post really interesting and the questions to be persuasive.
Amy, I’m curious where the statistics are that prove some of the things you are talking about. Obviously there is not a set of statistics that “prove” racism or lack thereof, and I’m not denying it exists, and as I said above, I’m not denying an “institutional” component to the problem. It’s simply very easy to claim things without citing some statistics concerning the problem because whenever challenged, it becomes an anecdotal game of “My experience tells me…” (and I’m not claiming immunity to irresponsibility in playing the game).
Ron Paul in his own words:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”
The solution?
“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”
Here is the entire post.
I doubt that simply applying liberty to the country will eradicate racism. Amy’s point that it runs deeper inside a person is adequate enough to refute that. However, I believe Ron Paul’s point is well-founded that it is about the best thing the federal government can do. At the least, his description of the problem is at least part of the problem.
‘Doug… if you would like i will do some further research and pull some stuff out for you research speaking. Before I do that though, I have to challenge you on something. You give an affirmation of the existence of racism, and then spend a great deal of time arguing against the validity of racism, and against the arguments for its existence. You grant the principal in the abstract, but deny it in reality and at the practical level. That is how our nation has done a savvy job of being politically correct about racism, so we give the appearance of agreeing, but when it comes down to it actually affecting us, we wiggle 100 ways to get out of responsibility.
That is exactly what I am talking about with the post, people put it outside of themselves so they don’t have to actually do any personal work or reflection. You cannot have it both ways, it either exists and something should be done, or it doesn’t. You cannot say, it’s here, and then say it’s subjective, and give a minority exception example.
The problem with Ron Paul’s stance is that he is taking a problem that is communal, personal, and institutional, and claiming that using his form of govt. will eradicate it. That is still putting the blame everywhere, but him looking at himself. He is in effect saying, “The problem isn’t me, the problem is that the rest of the country will not follow my political system, if it did, then we would eliminate racism.” That’s still self-serving, and puts him at the center, rather than looking for a gospel, dying to self, other centered solution.
I frequently find tendencies within me that need repentance and redemption. That said, I’m not “shifting blame.” I feel as though you want to blame everyone, or say that everyone has a part in it, and I completely disagree with that. When I try to disagree, you somehow point out that I’m trying to shift blame. What gives?
It disappoints me that you consider liberty a “political system.” Liberty is a natural right. It is not a system. As for Ron Paul, I doubt he believes that his “system” would solve the problem. The quote merely points out one aspect and source of the problem.
This is definitely a complex issue. It’s bigger than the individual, yet smaller than the collective. And it’s both of those things combined. It’s not easy, but I find great offense in being lumped in with those who are truly racist simply because I’m white and I question your take on the nature of racism in America.
Doug, she’s not accusing you of anything per se. Actually she’s accusing humanity because racism is a sin and humanity is sinful. I acknowledge that I myself have sinful racist thinking. I repent of it same as I don’t like materialism yet am still materialistic.
To her big point though, it does seem like you’re arguing both sides a little. Not for and against racism. She’s not saying you’re racist at all. For and against the existence and prevalence of racism.
Your comments about liberty as a political system don’t stick I don’t think. That’s like saying “Calvinism isn’t a theological system it’s biblical truth.” It’s both. Liberty is obviously a political ideology whether it’s a natural law or not.
I won’t hijack the “liberty” debate on this blog post, cuz it wasn’t the original intention. More on that here (I wrote it recently, would love your thoughts):
http://liveloud.net/blog/?p=590
As for “playing both sides,” I’ll consider that in good nature. I didn’t intend for it to come off that way. Maybe the best way to approach it would be to explain the tension within on the whole issue.
Hello all, Doug invited me over for this discussion.
Institutionalized privileges must be eliminated. Justice before the law works best when there are no legal privileges at all. Often, the legal establishment has extended the franchise to previously excluded classes rather than abolishing the privilege. Other times the law has created another privilege to counter the existing one rather than abolishing the first. These approaches increase the appeal to power-over structures. I like to think of power-over structures as being something like the Scooby-Doo “energy monster” which grows and grows as it consumes more and more energy, but its appetite grows with it. As we appeal to power-over mechanisms to settle injustices generated by privilege we feed the monster which generates the privileges. The consequence is more injustice. The first step in dealing with the injustices of racism is to eliminate legal privileges.
Doug, I believe you are missing what I am trying to say, which could easily be my miscommunication, but at no point have I called one specific person a racist. The point is acknowledgement of privilege, and whether or not you have it.
Not acknowledging that privilege perpetuates the problem, and can be perceived as very hurtful to people who experience racism as a minority. Being in the majority does not make you a racist by some sort of birth right, I never said that, but it puts you in power in a system that is giving us some level of rewards based upon our skin tone.
Notice the list of original questions/comments, none of them if your conclusion is “yes” to the statement makes you a personal racist. But, we have to acknowledge that we are participants, sometimes willingly, sometimes not, in an unjust society.
JURIS: thank you for adding your view to the conversation, but just for clarity’s sake, I at no point advocated for one specific legal system, law, or policy. That is where the difference comes in. Two, three, or four people can all agree that institutional racism exists, but in all likelihood, they will not agree on how to eradicate it. Acknowledging one has white privilege does not make you racist, nor does mean you suscribe to one legal view or another. But, you cannot change something if you don’t even think it exists.
A good friend of mine says this often, “Race is a minefield, but if you don’t enter the minefield you will never get across. Evaluate yourself and get into the minefield.”
The point of the post is white privilege, the existence of racism, and a tool which many have found useful in understanding racism from a white perspective.
Amy, thanks for clarifying these. But authorial intent be damned! Is there no room for reader interpretation? Okay, just kidding! Had to be an uber-liberal for a moment.
On a serious note, though, I cannot see how pursuing individual liberty is not one of the largest ways of contributing to the solution. If part of the problem of institutionalized racism is privilege based on race, how would a radical adjustment in our thinking to treat individuals as individuals not help pave the way in an institutionalized way? Government programs and readjustments in social structure are simply arrangements made on the basis not of individuals but of collectivism. The way of liberty and protecting individual rights is a huge step in deconstructing the ugliness of collectivism. Call it a “system” if you want, but it is based on basic human rights, not a subjective system of how to best orchestrate (aka control) others into being non-racist.
Amy, how do you define “just” and “unjust”? I’d love to read a post on the nature of justice.
A short comment would not suffice, yes, I will write a post on it. It would be helpful for discussion I am sure. Thanks for the idea.