TPMCafe
« The Possibility of an Obama-Chavez Understanding | Home | The lobby now admits it is a 'sliver,' unrepresentative of majority of American Jews »

The White Supremacist in Us

user-pic

In recent weeks, Americans struggled to make sense of tragic shootings that seemed disconnected at first glance. Anti-Semite James Von Brunn killed Stephen T. Johns, a black security guard at the Holocaust Museum. George Tiller's murder a few days earlier seemed to be about abortion, yet his shooter, Scott Roeder, also had roots in the racial purity movement. Two weeks ago, it was reported that the murders of Raul Flores and his daughter in Arizona were charged to three people with white supremacist ambitions.

There's been lots of discussion about why hate crimes are rising and how to prevent future tragedies, yet we've largely missed the relationship between extremist racism and the less obvious version that plays out in our political debates. These shooters all felt that people of color (along with women and Jews) have stolen the birthright of white men. In his book "Kill the Best Gentiles," Von Brunn rails against "the calculated destruction of the White Race." Roeder was a member of the Montana Freemen; commenters on white supremacist websites praised him for ensuring that Tiller would never "kill another White baby." Flores' alleged murderers appear to have been preparing for a white uprising.

Our discussion of these events has boiled down to the idea that racism is an intentional, violent act of a lone crazy white man. Underlying this idea, however, is the unspoken assumption that since we criminalized such hatred through civil rights laws, there's nothing else we can do as a country. Collectively, we bemoan the backwardness of "some" people before we move on, thinking of racism as isolated extremism.

But social psychologists who developed the Implicit Associations Test at Harvard and the Universities of Virginia and Washington in 1998 tell us that notions of the innate goodness of white people and the equally innate badness of people of color are so deeply imbedded in our minds that we're totally unaware of making such judgments. Even I, a woman of color and racial justice activist for 25 years, have taken their online test with dismaying results. White supremacists speak their beliefs aloud, but we all have similar ideas and act on them in tiny ways that add up.

The notion that people of color get more than our share plays out again and again in our institutions and policies, expanding the racial divide. If we think that Black people manufactured the foreclosure crisis in order to get a handout, the law limits their ability to get relief. If we think that undocumented immigrants are leeching off the U.S., we will not pass an immigration reform that changes their status. If we think that children of color can't learn, we don't do what's needed to improve public schools.

As a nation, we are about to make critical decisions about all our systems. Unconscious biases already permeate these debates every time we ask who deserves how much of health care, education, jobs. Our discourse is heavily coded. There's no need to say that "illegal" equals Mexican, or that the "irresponsible" homeowner is black, or that "unqualified" means woman of color. Even if we don't rhetorically attach these ideas to particular groups of people, our brains have been conditioned to make the connections anyway.

There's particular danger in characterizing racism as isolated madness during the greatest recession in 60 years. We now have to rebuild our economy - will we continue with a model that includes stark inequality? That seems likely if we can't grapple honestly with the racial gap, since structural inequality will always make our economy more vulnerable to a crash. That inequality is also what keeps us apart, in separate neighborhoods, schools and workplaces. That distance makes it much easier for violent extremists to recruit struggling white people into their ranks.

As white communities, particularly men, face conditions that have been chronic in communities of color, their vulnerability to racist ideas could disrupt the possibility of working together for real solutions. The unemployment of white men has more than doubled over the past year, from 4.2 to 8.5 percent. They are shocked, angry, and ready to direct all that heat somewhere. The most productive place for that energy is in alliance with communities of color, so that together, we can focus on changing the policies that allowed elites to run off with all our assets.

It is possible to craft truly universal social and economic policy that can both generate racial equity and improve life for everyone, including unemployed white men. There were racially-fueled murders before last week, and there's every reason to think there will be more. As we grieve, the Obama Administration and Congress continue the immense task of rebuilding the economy and reforming immigration and healthcare. Something positive can emerge from these tragic events if our efforts to understand them led to policies that actually brought us together - in our lives, as well as in our minds.


14 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Very astute observations, Rinku!

user-pic

I agree that we have systemic problems but be careful... most people have far less in common with the crazies you mention than the Implicit Associations Test implies. People are, in the main, just better than that.

user-pic

First, let's stop using the term "person of color," which simply means "non-non-Hispanic white."

The term basically suggests that Asians, Latinos, blacks, Amerindians, Pygmy Negritos, and Bushmen are all part of a single entity that exists in opposition to whites.

user-pic

What?

user-pic

The term "person of color" means "non-white," or more specifically, anyone other than a non-Hispanic white. Blacks, Hispanics, Asian, Amerindians, all are considered to be "persons of color."

I dislike the term because it divides the world into "whites" and "everyone else."

user-pic

And yet that is the world in which we live.

The question I have is how white-nonwhite model overlays the have-havenot model, and how this will change as more whites fall into the 'havenot' category. Traditionally, the two models have been somewhat correlated, but I suspect this is starting to change.

user-pic

Ms. Sen, have you ever read, and commented on the work of Kevin B. Macdonald? HIs so-called Jewish trilogy?

user-pic

It feels almost inevitable that people would be pointing guns at other people. It'd be nice if they weren't confused about where to be pointing them. I know that sounds awfully cynical but there are lots of good reasons for people to be pissed. Given the level of criminal conduct that has occurred, the reaction shouldn't surprise anyone. It's bad enough that certain groups of powerful people have so screwed over this country, but to then have certain others cast blame that has not a thing to do with what has actually occurred is way messed up. This has the very intentional and very false feeling of reassignment of accountability.

user-pic

You write as though the deeply embedded racism permeating every aspect of our society is some sort of revelation. It isn't. It's clear that the racist legacy of slavery is responsible for the distorted sense Americans of all races have of who is good and bad, better or worse, deserving and undeserving and so on. The American psyche and our entire world view is framed on a racist set of assumptions and each of us must consciously challenge and try to overcome them in the long battle to dislodge and finally to overcome this legacy of racism. This has been well known and we have been fighting this reality for decades. I suppose it never hurts to remind people of this, but it still is nothing new or revelatory.

user-pic

But Oleeb...

"As a nation, we are about to make critical decisions about all our systems. Unconscious biases already permeate these debates every time we ask who deserves how much of health care, education, jobs."

I think she's saying it's not just a matter of personal introspection and "jihad" against our own attitudes...but how the assumptions that embody those attitudes inform public policy.

One could easily be working diligently on himself uncovering every racist attitude and still not see how the public policy arguments we "accept" as legitimate reflect not facts, but attitudes.

user-pic

I understand your point. I think these things go hand in hand.

user-pic

Exhibit A

European countries are much more generous to the poor relative to the US level of generosity. Economic models suggest that redistribution is a function of the variance and skewness of the pre-tax income distribution, the volatility of income (perhaps because of trade shocks), the social costs of taxation and the expected income mobility of the median voter. [But n]one of these factors appear to explain the differences between the US and Europe. Instead, the differences appear to be the result of racial heterogeneity in the US and American political institutions. Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters. American political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally limited the political power of the poor.

Exhibit B

It was the Conservative politician David Willetts who drew my attention to the "progressive dilemma". Speaking at a roundtable on welfare reform, he said: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests."

Happy days.

Facebook

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v server 2008, win iscsi target

Facebook

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability software

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address