What Do "White People" Have to Do with Darren Wilson?

I've seen several Internet comments asking what "white people" as a group have to do with Darren Wilson. It's painful but simple: we created him.

We created a culture that devalues black lives, most especially young black male lives. That's us. We created a culture that sees police force against black citizens as acceptable "law and order" but sees force against white citizens as an aberration at best and government tyranny at worst. Look at the responses to Waco and Ruby Ridge. That's us. We created a culture that is reflectively defensive in the extreme, banding together in support of "our own" whenever one of us is criticized, much less actually attacked, by one of "those people." Us again. We created a culture that thinks the answer to racism is for everyone else to stop talking about the existence of racism, while we pretend to "not see color." Us, too. And it was us, as a group, who collected over a half a million dollars in donations to support Darren Wilson BEFORE his legal guilt or innocence had even begun to be tested. THAT's what we have to do with Darren Wilson.

If any given white person wants to NOT be "lumped in" with those "other" white people, we have to start by admitting who and what we have been and continue to be, culturally. And then we have to actively reject and work against those things in white culture that we want to be separated from in the eyes of others. And after that...we have to recognize, understand, and accept that because we always have benefitted and always will benefit from the racial inequalities in this country, we are GOING to be included in any discussions of what white people do as a group and a culture, with at best an occasional mention of us not being "like that".

Nothing Inherently Racist About the Handling of the Wilson Case?

To those who think there's nothing inherently racist about the handling of the Brown case: St Louis County DA McCullough just ran unopposed for reelection despite a longstanding negative reputation in the local black community. How is this possible? The county is 70% white and 23% black.

Thus far, the only prominent dissents against McCullough's handling of the case have come from the black community. The white community is essentially silent on the issue, or vocally supportive. Without some pushback from the white voters, McCullough has ZERO chance of suffering any political fallout from this.

White prosecutor in a county with a white supermajority exonerates white cop for shooting an unarmed black man. Tell me again that has nothing to do with race.

Census Data on St. Louis County, MO

Go Ahead, Be Angry With Us

I'm really getting tired of seeing so many of my people saying "we're all just HUMAN beings" as a way of saying "Don't be angry with white people!"

Go ahead, be angry. We're grown. We can handle people getting angry with us. Especially when we've EARNED it.

Let’s Play Monopoly!

For those who continue to doubt or deny the existence and/or significance of white privilege, I’d like to offer the following thought experiment:

Two people, A and B, sit down to play a game of Monopoly. From the very first round, A cheats the game. Whenever he lands on a property, he declares that it’s his, but pays nothing into the bank for the property. If B “passes Go” he has to give the $200 to A, rather than keep it himself. If B gets a “Chance” card that is supposed to pay him money, the cash goes to A instead. If A pulls a “chance” card that says he’s supposed to pay money, B has to pay the fine. B isn’t allowed to own any utilities, and he can’t buy properties more valuable than Connecticut Ave. For the properties he does own, he can’t add houses or hotels.

This game continues for a long time, with A gathering more and more cash, owning more and more properties and utilities, and building more and more houses and hotels, and B stuck with almost no cash and very few properties, if any. Eventually, a new pair of players, C and D, sit down and take over the game from A and B. C has all of the money and assets that A acquired, and D has what little B acquired. They continue the game under the same rules, with the same pattern of C getting wealthier and wealthier and D staying far behind. This happens again and again, with E and F replacing C and D, G and H replacing E and F, and so on. Every time a new set of players arrives, they use the same rules that A and B did, and one of them has all of A’s assets, with the other one having what B and his successors accumulated.

This goes on and on, until finally Y and Z sit down to play. This time, things are different. The rules have changed, with Y and Z now having the same rights and privileges and the same opportunity. Y and Z are equal, except for one fact: Y has inherited all of the wealth that A, C, E, G, and their followers built up when the rules were rigged against B and his progeny. Y wants to play fair, he doesn’t want to take advantage of Z, he even likes Z.

Given these circumstances, my question is this: Is Y “privileged” over Z?

Why Do "They" Have to Make a Big Deal of Who They Are?

Apparently there's been a bit of an online stir in response to Jodie Foster's speech at the 2013 Golden Globes. I've not seen the entire sppech, but in the excerpts I've seen (such as above) she very clearly referred to having come out years ago to her family and friends. Some of the responses I've seen have been...odd. People trying to figure out "Did she just say she's gay?" Ummmmm...yes. There's no other usage of "coming out" that makes sense in this context. She was not, after all, a debutante. Nor did she have a quinceanera (unless I'm vastly misinformed as to her background). Other responses have been, well, a little sad. Not offensive really, but sad. I'm referring to those who have said "I miss the days when people didn't feel the need to reveal themselves like that" or "why did she have to make an issue of it?" Things of that sort. Now, a simplistic reading of those responses would be to say that they express homophobia. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think what they express is heteronormative thinking. It is very possible to have no ill will at all towards gay people, but at the same time only see them and evaluate their behavior from the vantage point of heterosexuality. An example would be "I don't mind gays at all"...not a hateful statement, but one which assumes the RIGHT to "mind" someone else in the first place. To tolerate them, or choose not to do so. That's only really possible if you are in the majority, if you see yourself as the norm against which others are compared. Another example would be "I like gays just fine, except when they act all flamboyant about it" or "I'm fine with gays as long as they don't make a big deal of it." Not hateful, but subtly bigoted all the same. Now, this is a pattern we can see again and again in American culture. The majority culture, when presented with someone who is not part of that majority, responds at first with hostility, then grudging tolerance that is predicated upon compliance with the majority norms. Countless immigrant groups have dealt with that pattern. Think of all of the Americans whose family names were one thing prior to immigration, but were changed to be more accepted. Anglicized. German families have done this. Italian families. Polish, Czech, Slovak, Croatian, et cetera. Why? To be accepted. To be allowed to have value in society. Language is another aspect. Being able to speak English isn't enough. There is an expectation that immigrants not only use English publicly but abandon their own language (and customs) privately. My grandfather was in an orphanage in the twenties, and he and his siblings were beaten for speaking French among themselves. Private, separate conversations leading to violence because the dominant language was not being used. To my knowledge, he never spoke a word of French after that, until he was on his death bed and started to regress to his childhood state. I studied French in school specifically to be able to speak to him in his language. our language. He refused to speak anything but English with me. I never got the chance to speak French with him, and I would've paid dearly to be able to do so. Perhaps those beatings in the orphanage came from animus against Acadians (he never used the slang term Cajun, and did not want me to do so, either). It may have been bigotry motivating those nuns. But perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps it was just, for lack of a better term, Anglo-normative thinking. A belief that to be part of the majority culture, one had to submit to the expectations of the majority. They may even have been trying to help my Grandfather. It is undeniable that my family is much better off socially and economically because of that assimilation. I speak well in court because my grandfather insisted that my mother speak only proper, grammatically correct, accent-free English, and she in turn taught that to me. We have benefitted from the assimilation. But should we have had to do so? Should we have been required to turn away from our mother language, and our culture, in order to find a place in the world? In many senses, that same question is being asked by gay Americans. Living in the closet is the ultimate assimilation, one which causes enormous emotional and spiritual pain. Having to "hide in plain sight" is no way to live. To a lesser extent, being out but trying not to "act too gay" or "make a big deal of it" is an assimilation. No doubt it carries social and monetary benefits. Not rocking the boat often pays off. But...should they have to "not rock the boat"? Should people have to live outwardly as something other than their true selves? Is the goal of social progress merely tolerance? Grudging acceptance, as long as "the rules" are followed? Or is the goal genuine inclusion? Full membership in society, without pretense or condition? Actual...equality? In a pluralistic society, this dilemma is presented again and again to those who are not "the norm." Racial, cultural, and sexual minorities. People whose neurology is different (be they "gifted" or "on the spectrum" or "learning disabled", or, like me, all three). How to fit in. whether to fit in. The question is unavoidable. I've had family members ask me why my wife and I "keep up with that whole black thing." After all, I'm white (LOL), Betty is black but has very fair skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes, so she looks white to an awful lot of white people (as in those who never lived in or near the Seventh Ward in New Orleans). Our kids look white. So why not just...be white? Why should we have to? Jodie Foster is a brilliant woman. A truly gifted actress, a director, an intellectual. Hell, she's even an Ivy-Leaguer. She has widespread and longstanding respect for her many accomplishments. And, yes, she is gay. By publicly referring to that fact, she wasn't "making a big deal of it", she was telling the rest of us "When you respect and admire me for what I do, you are respecting and admiring someone who is gay." She is who she is, and she's not pretending otherwise. Nor should she have to. We are all flawed beings, imperfect reflections of a perfect truth. The works of angels and devils alike are in our hearts. We see the world not as it is, but as we are able to see it through the fog of our own limitations. The most any of us can ever possess is a part of the truth, a glimmer of insight. The only way to overcome these shortcomings is to turn to one another and recognize that each of us has something meaningful to add. Each of us has value. We have to meet each other and ask not "why aren't you more like me" but "what can I learn from you being...you?" Peace out, brothers and sisters.

Yesterday I sent the following letter to the editors of the Times Picayune, in response to this cartoon from Mike Martinez which they published on Saturday's op-ed page:

As a Southern newspaper well-versed in our troubled racial history, the Times Picayune should recognize racial "dogwhistles" when they are being blown. Saturday's political cartoon from Mike Ramirez was an example of just such a dogwhistle, and you chose to dignify it with publication.

Ever since Ronald Reagan's 1980 speeches about "strapping young bucks" driving Cadillacs and "welfare queens" buying steaks with food stamps, the conflation of food stamps and other types of welfare with the African-American community has been a staple of GOP rhetoric, particularly here in the South. The fact that it is based upon an absolute lie never seems to stop anyone from repeating it. After all, the vast majority of recipients of governmental aid are not African-American, they are white. But the lie helps to feed into white resentment, so it is useful to the GOP (which cheerfully absorbed all of the former Dixiecrats like Thurmond and Helms into its ranks). Referring to President Obama as the "food stamp president" is obviously an extension of this tired, racist trope.

The Martinez cartoon, showing a "food stamp" with Obama's face on it in the upper-right corner of a "Letter of Intent" from the "Nation of Achievement" at 100 Main Street, America, USA to the "Nation of Entitlement" at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is part of that same sad tradition. Ignoring the fact that President Obama is himself a strong example of personal effort and achievement, having woken up at four a.m. each morning as a child to do his school work and then worked his way into Columbia and Harvard Law School, followed by the U.S. Senate and ultimately the White House, Martinez claims that Mr. Obama represents the "Nation of Entitlement", not achievement. Further, Martinez ignores the fact that discretionary entitlement spending has not been increased under President Obama, certainly not to nearly the extent it was increased under his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, who signed into law Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of federal benefits since LBJ. He ignores the billions of dollars in entitlement spending cuts that President Obama has proposed. No, for Martinez and his rightwing cohorts, Obama = black = food stamps.

The question I must ask of you, as the daily newspaper that serves a majority-black city, is why are you willing to help spread such a false and malicious message? As a native of New Orleans, I understand full well that we are surrounded by communities that are considerably more conservative (and, yes, more white) than our own, and you have papers to sell in those parishes. But surely in your ongoing quest to appeal to the hinterlands you have some standards that you seek to uphold? Surely a bare modicum of factual basis should be demanded of the opinions you publish? Or has the Times Picayune decided to simply become part of the rightwing echo chamber? If that's the case, go ahead and fire your reporters and opinion writers. It will be cheaper to simply run bylines from Newsmax and the Washington Times, and perhaps more agreeable for your non-New Orleans customer base.

Somehow, I rather doubt they'll be publishing it. Dailies like the Times Picayune show just how ridiculous the notion of the "Liberal Media" really is. Papers that serve conservative customer bases are going to willingly provide red-meat for their constituency, because that's where the money is. This is true regardless of whatever personal beliefs the editors of the paper may have.

"New Rules" (In Response to Gene Marks)

1) Before you presume to lecture poor black kids, you first have to know some poor black kids personally. And not in a "that kid delivers my newspaper" kind of way, actual friendship.

2) Before you tell poor black kids that it's okay that their schools are failing, as long as they work hard, you have to send YOUR kids to one of those failing schools. When it's your flesh and blood on the line, then you can accept the quality of those schools.

3) Before you start telling poor black kids that all it takes is smarts, hard work, and a little luck, you'd better be able to honestly look at your own situation and consider whether you had to be exceptional to get there, or whether just "being you" worked out pretty well for you. And you'd better be able to admit that "a little luck" in the case of an American white person includes having been born into the wealthiest society in human history, one whose wealth originates, to an enormous extent, with the bondage of other human beings.

4) Before you post an article about poor black kids on a website aimed at rich white guys, you need to ask yourself: "Will writing this make me look like an enormous douchebag?"

NOTE: While this post is a response to another person's writing, to which I'd normally link, I'm not going to link to Gene Marks' "If I Were a Poor Black Kid" article on Forbes.com, because from what I hear he gets money for page-views, and I don't want to drive up his traffic. Bad enough I read the piece and gave him $.000001 for his efforts...