-Caveat Lector-

The Truth is Rarely Pleasant:
Racism, White Denial, and Some Thoughts on Being "Divisive"

By Tim Wise (ZNet commentary)

Having been a white man for 32 years, I have learned there are some things
white folks aren't supposed to say.

For example, we aren't supposed to acknowledge that we have received, and
continue to receive substantial privileges, simply because of skin color:
better job opportunities, greater access to housing, better educational
offerings and partial treatment in the justice system.

And we aren't supposed to acknowledge the massive prejudice in our
communities, which leads at least a third of us to admit--and no doubt many
more to feel this way but not confess it--that we believe blacks are less
intelligent than we are, less hardworking, and more prone to criminality.

And we aren't supposed to challenge other whites about their racism, or the
myriad institutional injustices that most of us accept passively, if not
actively support. To do this, and to demand that whites deal honestly with
the nation's legacy of racial oppression is to invite indignant charges that
one is being "divisive."

This was made clear to me after my recent keynote address to the St. Louis
Mayor's Conference on Racial Justice and Harmony, this past October. Though
my speech was generally well received, with a standing ovation from at least
800 of the 1200 persons in the audience, there were apparently some in
attendance who were not so pleased. And these few--all of them white--have
been complaining loudly about my "divisive" rhetoric, which, according to
these folks, makes racial harmony more difficult than ever.

What had I said, exactly, to upset these dear souls? Who knows? Bitter memos
sent around city hall didn't specify, and the gossip columnist for the
city's daily, The Post-Dispatch, who ran a blip on the "controversy" didn't
elaborate either. But I would assume they were upset because I said among
other things the following, backed up, of course, with statistical support:

--It is whites who are in denial about the ongoing problem of racism, and
this denial is itself a form of racism: a kind of white supremacy that says,
"I know your reality better than you do;"

--The biggest barriers to racial harmony and racial justice are
institutional racism and the existence of systemic white privilege in all
walks of life;

--"Diversity" and "tolerance" are not worth fighting for, unless accompanied
by equity and justice: the first two are easy and meaningless, the latter
two take work;

To most people of color these positions are not that radical. But apparently
there are still some of my people who get mightily offended by being
reminded that we have some work to do--both individually and
collectively--and until we do it, there will be no kumbaya chorus.

It's interesting to note what upsets white folks, compared to that which
doesn't. On the one hand, my words calling for an end to white privilege are
seen as divisive, but the privileges themselves are not; demanding an end to
racism in education, criminal justice, housing and employment is seen as
divisive, but the existence of said racism is not. Frankly, if the good
folks in St. Louis, who found my speech so troubling, are upset about
"divisiveness," then surely they could manage to focus their attention on
the following facts, all of which must be more divisive than anything I
said, by a magnitude of thousands:

--Housing segregation has been so extreme in St. Louis over the years, that
approximately 75% of all blacks in the city live in neighborhoods that are
virtually all black, and disproportionately low income. The same is true, of
course, in many urban areas of the United States;

--This hypersegregation has been no accident, but the result of deliberate
discrimination by real estate appraisers, landlords, and mortgage lenders.
As far back as 1941, underwriters in St. Louis were complaining about the
"rapidly increasing Negro population," leading to massive discrimination
that was essentially legal for the next 27 years, and even since, has
persisted in more subtle forms. All across America this was the case:
blockbusting, redlining, steering, and outright intimidation intended to
prevent people of color from obtaining homes in more prosperous
neighborhoods;

--From 1934-1960, whites moving to St. Louis area suburbs received five
times more government-underwritten FHA home loans than folks in the city,
who were increasingly people of color. This preferential treatment for
whites continues to have an effect today, as those homes pass to the
descendants of the original owners, and become accumulated wealth.
Nationally, over $120 billion in housing equity was underwritten by the FHA
during this time, and only 2% went to African Americans;

--Throughout the metropolitan area, children of color are roughly three
times more likely to live in poverty than their white counterparts, and have
infant mortality rates that are two-and-a-half times higher; figures that
remain remarkably consistent most any place you look in the country.

But to some it isn't the indicia of oppression that deserve our attention or
consternation; rather it is the pointing out of these grim realities; the
reminding of ourselves and others just how unequal things really are and
why, that gets folks bent out of shape. And it's not just a few whites in
St. Louis who feel this way. No indeed: Two years ago, I was all but banned
from Omaha, Nebraska by the Mayor, who canceled a city-sponsored event
rather than to allow me to speak at the gathering. Later, when the event was
rescheduled, it was explained to me that he had been concerned I would "stir
up trouble," and inject "divisiveness," into the city along racial lines, by
speaking on the anniversary of a racial lynching that had occurred 80 years
ago.

Before my eventual speech to the Omaha Human Relations Commission, I had
breakfast with the Mayor, who afterward confided in me his love for black
Omaha, regaled me with tales of his many black friends, and made clear that
he didn't want me to be "divisive," the way some of "those SNCC people" had
been back in the '60's. He didn't actually come to my speech, but if he had,
I'm sure he wouldn't have liked it much: especially the part where I
mentioned how divisive I thought his new policing strategy was; one about
which he had bragged actually, and which involves low-flying helicopters
with bright flood lights, swooping down over black homes throughout North
Omaha. Nice, real nice.

Then there were the white students at Cal State-San Marcos, who, in 1997,
editorialized in the school's paper against having a day of speeches on
racism--including a few by yours truly--and suggested that the "Unity Day"
events should be more upbeat and positive. We should focus on what "brings
us together," they insisted, not that "which keeps us apart." Perhaps ethnic
food and dancing, one suspects, but not those "divisive" subjects like the
state's rollback of affirmative action, or attack on immigrants.

Of course, the editors who penned this commentary neglected to mention the
real source of divisiveness surrounding this particular day: namely, the
death threats made against a black professor and myself by racist followers
of Tom Metzger's White Aryan Resistance, and the promise to detonate a bomb
on campus if the event wasn't canceled. In retrospect, I guess it would have
been less "divisive" if I had just stayed home, the professor resigned her
position, and the event planners caved in to the Nazis. But if so, this just
indicates how meaningless the term really is, and how irrelevant it should
be to those working for justice.

So to those persons of color who have been fighting the good fight, trying
to force those in power to heed your calls for justice, keep it up. What you
are fighting for is not divisive. It is that which you are fighting against
that is the problem. And remember that by our defensiveness, by our
protestations of innocence, by our denials that anything is wrong, my people
are signing their confession. They may not be able to handle the truth, but
that doesn't make it any less factual.
----
Tim Wise is a Nashville-based writer, lecturer and antiracism activist. He
can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to