"All other things being equal, would I have had it easier if I’d been born Black or brown? ...Would the occasional compensations of diversity and affirmative-action initiatives really outweigh the daily stings of prejudice?"
Great question. To me, an honest answer is very possibly yes. I can't know for sure. Part of it depends on the extent of the "daily stings." Every racial sensitivity seminar focuses on such slights and microaggressions. At the same time, I have heard stories of allegedly racist microaggressions that I know to be baloney (because I know the people involved and the facts of the situation). I have heard some black commentators -- John McWhorter comes to mind -- essentially call bullshit on many such tales of woe. Apparently, he and many others of his mind don't feel that they're living life as a string of constant race-based indignities. Why not?
As for those "occasional compensations," boy, I think they really would have helped me at various stages, from college applications to professional school applications and to job searches in both of my fields of law and especially education. Yes, such advantages are occasional, but they can make a huge difference at the most important stages of a person's life and career. I'm not one of those people who thinks that racism and prejudice are solved and don't exist. That's absurd. Have you heard of the internet? And I don't doubt that racism is alive and well in many job markets. Not in mine, though.
But even if I'm wrong about all that, I still don't like the "white privilege" and "whiteness" ways of talking about these issues, for substantive as well as strategic reasons. Strategically, it's off-putting. Instructing people who don't feel particularly "privileged" that they really are is no way to win converts. It naturally and predictably puts people on the defensive. Essentially saying, "down with whiteness," "down with white privilege," strikes me as super dumb, not as bad as "defund the police" perhaps, but in a similar vein.
Meanwhile, it's substantively misleading and completely unnecessary. How did we used to talk about these issues? We said, essentially, "Black people are treated worse because they're black, and have been for generations. That's wrong, that's unfair, so let's fix it." So, we outlawed discrimination, and, in recognition of the race-based systemic social disadvantages imposed by some 350 years of racial oppression on this continent, authorized positive steps, "affirmative action," to help level the playing field. Notions of "whiteness" and "white privilege" brought nothing to that discussion and were only ever the preoccupation, until recently, of radical thinkers.
The main problem with "white privilege" talk is that it makes it sound like the problem is that white people have something they shouldn’t. But that's not really the problem. The problem is that black people don’t have something they should. The solution to unearned privilege sounds like it ought to be to remove the privilege. But that doesn't really fix it. Take, for example, police harassment of black people. The old way of talking was very straightforward and easy to understand: black people are mistreated by the police on average far more than others. That's not right, so let's stop doing that. Makes sense to me! How do you fit that into white privilege discourse? I guess the privilege would be that white people are relatively free of police harassment. Privilege talk makes it sound as though the solution is to remove the privilege -- to, what, start harassing white people more? That of course would be crazy.
What's more, white privilege talk makes it sound like a zero-sum game, that white advantages translate into black disadvantages and vice versa. Once again, this sounds threatening -- like you want to take something away. Not smart. But, as the police harassment example illustrates, it's not a zero-sum game. Being free from police harassment isn’t a privilege at all – it’s a right! We can have equal rights for all without diminishing anyone's supposed "privileges."
Privilege talk strikes me as carrying a sharp us-vs.-them rhetorical edge ill-suited to the message and the solution. Everybody, meanwhile, understands unfairness. Why not simply illustrate unfairnesses and urge their correction? Why do we have to sound like we're coming for someone's goodies?
“Whiteness” is yet more insidious. It posits that there is a white dominant culture that is in opposition to blackness. The idea is that the game is rigged, that our cultural values are congenial to whites and somehow alien or hostile to blacks. Thus, when, for example, white kids on average do better on a test, it’s because the test is not testing math or reading as you suppose but is actually testing whiteness, and naturally, black people are not as good as white people at embodying whiteness.
That perspective, of course, is glib and noxious. But it’s worse than that. It reinforces antiblack stereotypes and would seem, if we didn’t know the intention behind it, to be straight-up, old school, David Dukeishly racist. Whiteness thinking was famously boiled down into a handy chart displayed at the Smithsonian’s African American History Museum until outcry led to its removal A similar chart was used in my own Kendi/DiAngelo/Singleton-style race-sensitivity training. You can see it here:
Note its equation of whiteness with “hard work,” clock time, the “scientific method,” and “rational, objective linear thinking.” My version mentioned “worship of the written word.” Such charts make it sound as though black people are lazy, late, dumb, irrational, and illiterate. It’s that nuts. Meanwhile, they identify whiteness with Christianity and conservative values, viewpoints held more by average black people than the sort of white progressives who would warm to this asinine chart. Ultimately, such thinking falls down because it insists that there’s a black way and a white way, and it’s just not so.
So, I’d be happy if we did what we did with defund the police and chuck witness and white privilege talk and instead focus on all those many areas where people experience unfair disadvantages and do everything we can to eliminate them.
OK, as I see it, the very fact that this "fast" is a thing indicates that we still have work to do, otherwise no one would have had reason to think of it. Face it, that so many Americans couldn't even say "Black lives matter" and had to say "All lives matter" indicated the fact that they could NOT say "Black lives matter", mostly because they are tired of black people whining about being victims of white people. Understand that this is precisely what I hear from my "conservative" friends, that's how they prefer to define themselves friends, each and every one. However, also understand that none of them treat black people poorly. I know because I've seen them interact with them and so they are simply tired of being lumped in with racists. they believe in equal opportunity, in equal treatment under the law, they condemn the slavery that existed, they condemn Jim Crow, they condemn redlining, etc.
I look at Germany and its success in dealing with its Nazi past and wonder what we did wrong to make progress with race yet have so many feel as my "conservative" friends do. One thing may be that race is still an issue to the degree that it is is because the North did not utterly destroy Southern culture, based on race and class as the Allies did to Nazism at the end of WWII. In many ways the South won the Civil War as its policies perpetuated into the 20th Century and those racists simply moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party at the signing of the Civil Rights Act, due to their "state's rights" position, and was able to take advantage of white grievance of their conservative base, mostly in the South, but also add Northern whites to their group due to their loss of status from automation and globalization.
I have no patience for conservatism. I understand that it exists, but it is reactionary and is a problem in every society and must be addressed. IMO, we have refused to deal with it, as in not destroying Southern culture at the end of the Civil War, and so here we are. Maybe its time to fight conservatism as harshly as they fight liberalism but in a way that does not blame "conservatives" just because they're white.
Lara Logan was brutally attacked and raped when she was covering the Benghazi situation . . . aren't you being a bit harsh in your judgment of her? How about a bit more emotional intelligence and compassion in your reporting?
Anybody who claims "conservatives" are happy and liberals are "basically unhappy" is either a liar or a fool.
Conservatives in 2022 are essentially victim merchants, there is not one thing in this world that does not somehow victimize them.
A church they don't attend plans music for which they don't approve, so they take to social media to scold.
A woman they've never met arranges a medical procedure they don't want to allow her to get so medical professionals must be criminalized.
A politician they support loses an election, then loses 60+ court cases and dozens of "recounts" and "ballot audits" and tops it all off with a failed coup attempt, so dozens of new voter restriction laws are needed.
A student they've never heard of questions his or her own gender identity so medical consultations must be outlawed.
Another student they've never met has two dad's so a law is required to prevent them from being able to talk to their teachers about their family in grammar school.
These "conservative" wretches want nothing more than to further marginalize their already marginalized fellow citizens.
They truly are a miserable bunch of unhappy, awful people.
Eric’s view of this issue is an exposition from a political angle, but because it is a church, taking a nut-shell biblical view of it may shed some light also:
Galatians 3:26-29
"26 For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise."
I’m no theologian, but I’ve always read this passage to mean that there are no distinctions among Christians in the church – at least in this biblical context of Paul the Apostle writing to encourage unity in the church at Galatia – designating differences in race, social status, or gender, etc., but “. . . you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
It seems to me that separating the First United Church of Oak Park’s music based on race may be a clever way to highlight the music of African Americans, but it is done at the exception of biblical teaching aiming at unity and racial balance; and, depending on one's sensitivity, it could be viewed as a racist gesture.
This seems like an application of a separatist political doctrine overriding biblical teaching, which may say something about the politics and biblical integrity of the church in question.
I liked your comments on the 'fasting' stuff. I also agree that we still have work to do as a society to ensure equal protection and equal opportunity for all. I am a 67-year-old American with Mexican heritage (mestizo), I am NOT a' brown person'. 'Brown person' is a condescending and derogatory phrase. And I do not agree that 'white privilege' exists or is useful as a concept. It does nothing to elucidate or frame actual areas needing attention. Most of your advantages in life came from your parents. This includes a large part of your sense of place, self-assurance, and confidence. Also, your educational and professional success. You may be surprised to learn that such parents also exist in minority communities, although 'white privilege' assumes that they do not. For me, the 'daily stings of prejudice' were trivial and irrelevant, I ignored them. I also avoided all affirmative action programs because they assumed that I was needy and less capable. Developing awareness of our biases (conscious and unconscious) is a good thing for everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Our host here was absolutely correct when he called you a tedious blowhard on his previous blog. That moniker stuck and you were banned, and that made his blog better.
Don't expect me to engage you here. Trust me, I know it ain't worth my time.
Totally agree with Eric on the election year grandstanding on the gas tax and would extend it to all of the other bogus tax relief measures. Particularly from the governor that said we needed a giant income tax increase just two years ago.
I don't think Mr. Wilson has any chance of getting elected mayor, but everyone has the right to jump into the race. And he is spending a lot of his own money to do it. But for Mr. Wilson, or any other candidate, I couldn't care less about their position on national issues or who they voted for in national elections. I care about what the candidate's position and proposals are with regard to Chicago issues and the role of the City.
As I have said many times here, the abortion laws (of any kind) only make sense with a definition of when an embryo or fetus becomes a person. The same is true for the application of child abuse or murder charges with respect to a fetus or embryo. The viability standard makes no sense because it is totally dependent on medical technology. Many would agree that a person begins at conception. Others can reasonably define a person at 24 weeks (or some standard of development). A person (a child) has legal rights and protections regardless of age or development. A part of a woman's body (pre-person standard) does not. This is the core problem which is fundamentally philosophical. Religious conservative politicians have no problem taking a stand. Opponents of this position must be equally adamant and forthright. We should not expect or want a panel of judges to make this determination as it is so fundamental. And it makes no sense to try to dodge the issue.
"Berg said the IPI is therefore exploring the idea of making signs for fuel pumps that in large type blast Gov. Pritzker for signing a doubling of the gas tax three years ago and in small type relaying the boilerplate legalese."
I've never supported or agreed with any statement from the IPI, until now.
I think the proper contrast for Chicago Thinker is their appropriate audience participation in a panel discussion compared to attempting to ban or shout-down speakers. I also don't know why you would wonder if they apply the same critical thinking to other speakers or sources. They certainly didn't go easy on Jonah Goldberg, who is pretty conservative. I also think they were referring to media and academic elites as 'the regime' not the current Administration. And finally, they were doing exactly what journalist, politicians, and citizens need to do, even if you don't like their conservative/libertarian philosophy.
Hey, a bunch of us here have said that the mayor's removal of the Columbus statue was the equivalent of a "heckler's veto". I also think more than one of us has endorsed your promotion of ranked voting as a way to fix primaries. NFT's will eventually be recognized as the scam that they are. Fools and their money are soon parted. But is the person that sells you a flea circus a fraudster or just taking the opportunity to sell you something that you want to see? Speaking of eliminating the meaning of words: what is the definition of 'female', in any biological context, if it isn't the production of offspring? Or maybe we are saying that a 'woman' is not an adult, female, human. At some point perception confronts reality.
"All other things being equal, would I have had it easier if I’d been born Black or brown? ...Would the occasional compensations of diversity and affirmative-action initiatives really outweigh the daily stings of prejudice?"
Great question. To me, an honest answer is very possibly yes. I can't know for sure. Part of it depends on the extent of the "daily stings." Every racial sensitivity seminar focuses on such slights and microaggressions. At the same time, I have heard stories of allegedly racist microaggressions that I know to be baloney (because I know the people involved and the facts of the situation). I have heard some black commentators -- John McWhorter comes to mind -- essentially call bullshit on many such tales of woe. Apparently, he and many others of his mind don't feel that they're living life as a string of constant race-based indignities. Why not?
As for those "occasional compensations," boy, I think they really would have helped me at various stages, from college applications to professional school applications and to job searches in both of my fields of law and especially education. Yes, such advantages are occasional, but they can make a huge difference at the most important stages of a person's life and career. I'm not one of those people who thinks that racism and prejudice are solved and don't exist. That's absurd. Have you heard of the internet? And I don't doubt that racism is alive and well in many job markets. Not in mine, though.
But even if I'm wrong about all that, I still don't like the "white privilege" and "whiteness" ways of talking about these issues, for substantive as well as strategic reasons. Strategically, it's off-putting. Instructing people who don't feel particularly "privileged" that they really are is no way to win converts. It naturally and predictably puts people on the defensive. Essentially saying, "down with whiteness," "down with white privilege," strikes me as super dumb, not as bad as "defund the police" perhaps, but in a similar vein.
Meanwhile, it's substantively misleading and completely unnecessary. How did we used to talk about these issues? We said, essentially, "Black people are treated worse because they're black, and have been for generations. That's wrong, that's unfair, so let's fix it." So, we outlawed discrimination, and, in recognition of the race-based systemic social disadvantages imposed by some 350 years of racial oppression on this continent, authorized positive steps, "affirmative action," to help level the playing field. Notions of "whiteness" and "white privilege" brought nothing to that discussion and were only ever the preoccupation, until recently, of radical thinkers.
The main problem with "white privilege" talk is that it makes it sound like the problem is that white people have something they shouldn’t. But that's not really the problem. The problem is that black people don’t have something they should. The solution to unearned privilege sounds like it ought to be to remove the privilege. But that doesn't really fix it. Take, for example, police harassment of black people. The old way of talking was very straightforward and easy to understand: black people are mistreated by the police on average far more than others. That's not right, so let's stop doing that. Makes sense to me! How do you fit that into white privilege discourse? I guess the privilege would be that white people are relatively free of police harassment. Privilege talk makes it sound as though the solution is to remove the privilege -- to, what, start harassing white people more? That of course would be crazy.
What's more, white privilege talk makes it sound like a zero-sum game, that white advantages translate into black disadvantages and vice versa. Once again, this sounds threatening -- like you want to take something away. Not smart. But, as the police harassment example illustrates, it's not a zero-sum game. Being free from police harassment isn’t a privilege at all – it’s a right! We can have equal rights for all without diminishing anyone's supposed "privileges."
Privilege talk strikes me as carrying a sharp us-vs.-them rhetorical edge ill-suited to the message and the solution. Everybody, meanwhile, understands unfairness. Why not simply illustrate unfairnesses and urge their correction? Why do we have to sound like we're coming for someone's goodies?
“Whiteness” is yet more insidious. It posits that there is a white dominant culture that is in opposition to blackness. The idea is that the game is rigged, that our cultural values are congenial to whites and somehow alien or hostile to blacks. Thus, when, for example, white kids on average do better on a test, it’s because the test is not testing math or reading as you suppose but is actually testing whiteness, and naturally, black people are not as good as white people at embodying whiteness.
That perspective, of course, is glib and noxious. But it’s worse than that. It reinforces antiblack stereotypes and would seem, if we didn’t know the intention behind it, to be straight-up, old school, David Dukeishly racist. Whiteness thinking was famously boiled down into a handy chart displayed at the Smithsonian’s African American History Museum until outcry led to its removal A similar chart was used in my own Kendi/DiAngelo/Singleton-style race-sensitivity training. You can see it here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-sun.com%2Fnews%2F1149007%2Fafrican-american-museum-whiteness-chart-protestant-values%2F&psig=AOvVaw2QNHgZDNxMG4vQJ-gkrtob&ust=1650030064771000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAwQjRxqFwoTCMiXsJPXk_cCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAO
Note its equation of whiteness with “hard work,” clock time, the “scientific method,” and “rational, objective linear thinking.” My version mentioned “worship of the written word.” Such charts make it sound as though black people are lazy, late, dumb, irrational, and illiterate. It’s that nuts. Meanwhile, they identify whiteness with Christianity and conservative values, viewpoints held more by average black people than the sort of white progressives who would warm to this asinine chart. Ultimately, such thinking falls down because it insists that there’s a black way and a white way, and it’s just not so.
So, I’d be happy if we did what we did with defund the police and chuck witness and white privilege talk and instead focus on all those many areas where people experience unfair disadvantages and do everything we can to eliminate them.
OK, as I see it, the very fact that this "fast" is a thing indicates that we still have work to do, otherwise no one would have had reason to think of it. Face it, that so many Americans couldn't even say "Black lives matter" and had to say "All lives matter" indicated the fact that they could NOT say "Black lives matter", mostly because they are tired of black people whining about being victims of white people. Understand that this is precisely what I hear from my "conservative" friends, that's how they prefer to define themselves friends, each and every one. However, also understand that none of them treat black people poorly. I know because I've seen them interact with them and so they are simply tired of being lumped in with racists. they believe in equal opportunity, in equal treatment under the law, they condemn the slavery that existed, they condemn Jim Crow, they condemn redlining, etc.
I look at Germany and its success in dealing with its Nazi past and wonder what we did wrong to make progress with race yet have so many feel as my "conservative" friends do. One thing may be that race is still an issue to the degree that it is is because the North did not utterly destroy Southern culture, based on race and class as the Allies did to Nazism at the end of WWII. In many ways the South won the Civil War as its policies perpetuated into the 20th Century and those racists simply moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party at the signing of the Civil Rights Act, due to their "state's rights" position, and was able to take advantage of white grievance of their conservative base, mostly in the South, but also add Northern whites to their group due to their loss of status from automation and globalization.
I have no patience for conservatism. I understand that it exists, but it is reactionary and is a problem in every society and must be addressed. IMO, we have refused to deal with it, as in not destroying Southern culture at the end of the Civil War, and so here we are. Maybe its time to fight conservatism as harshly as they fight liberalism but in a way that does not blame "conservatives" just because they're white.
@eric There must be some interesting rationale behind your spelling of “bury the lead
Lara Logan was brutally attacked and raped when she was covering the Benghazi situation . . . aren't you being a bit harsh in your judgment of her? How about a bit more emotional intelligence and compassion in your reporting?
Anybody who claims "conservatives" are happy and liberals are "basically unhappy" is either a liar or a fool.
Conservatives in 2022 are essentially victim merchants, there is not one thing in this world that does not somehow victimize them.
A church they don't attend plans music for which they don't approve, so they take to social media to scold.
A woman they've never met arranges a medical procedure they don't want to allow her to get so medical professionals must be criminalized.
A politician they support loses an election, then loses 60+ court cases and dozens of "recounts" and "ballot audits" and tops it all off with a failed coup attempt, so dozens of new voter restriction laws are needed.
A student they've never heard of questions his or her own gender identity so medical consultations must be outlawed.
Another student they've never met has two dad's so a law is required to prevent them from being able to talk to their teachers about their family in grammar school.
These "conservative" wretches want nothing more than to further marginalize their already marginalized fellow citizens.
They truly are a miserable bunch of unhappy, awful people.
Eric’s view of this issue is an exposition from a political angle, but because it is a church, taking a nut-shell biblical view of it may shed some light also:
Galatians 3:26-29
"26 For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise."
I’m no theologian, but I’ve always read this passage to mean that there are no distinctions among Christians in the church – at least in this biblical context of Paul the Apostle writing to encourage unity in the church at Galatia – designating differences in race, social status, or gender, etc., but “. . . you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
It seems to me that separating the First United Church of Oak Park’s music based on race may be a clever way to highlight the music of African Americans, but it is done at the exception of biblical teaching aiming at unity and racial balance; and, depending on one's sensitivity, it could be viewed as a racist gesture.
This seems like an application of a separatist political doctrine overriding biblical teaching, which may say something about the politics and biblical integrity of the church in question.
I liked your comments on the 'fasting' stuff. I also agree that we still have work to do as a society to ensure equal protection and equal opportunity for all. I am a 67-year-old American with Mexican heritage (mestizo), I am NOT a' brown person'. 'Brown person' is a condescending and derogatory phrase. And I do not agree that 'white privilege' exists or is useful as a concept. It does nothing to elucidate or frame actual areas needing attention. Most of your advantages in life came from your parents. This includes a large part of your sense of place, self-assurance, and confidence. Also, your educational and professional success. You may be surprised to learn that such parents also exist in minority communities, although 'white privilege' assumes that they do not. For me, the 'daily stings of prejudice' were trivial and irrelevant, I ignored them. I also avoided all affirmative action programs because they assumed that I was needy and less capable. Developing awareness of our biases (conscious and unconscious) is a good thing for everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Our host here was absolutely correct when he called you a tedious blowhard on his previous blog. That moniker stuck and you were banned, and that made his blog better.
Don't expect me to engage you here. Trust me, I know it ain't worth my time.
Totally agree with Eric on the election year grandstanding on the gas tax and would extend it to all of the other bogus tax relief measures. Particularly from the governor that said we needed a giant income tax increase just two years ago.
I don't think Mr. Wilson has any chance of getting elected mayor, but everyone has the right to jump into the race. And he is spending a lot of his own money to do it. But for Mr. Wilson, or any other candidate, I couldn't care less about their position on national issues or who they voted for in national elections. I care about what the candidate's position and proposals are with regard to Chicago issues and the role of the City.
As I have said many times here, the abortion laws (of any kind) only make sense with a definition of when an embryo or fetus becomes a person. The same is true for the application of child abuse or murder charges with respect to a fetus or embryo. The viability standard makes no sense because it is totally dependent on medical technology. Many would agree that a person begins at conception. Others can reasonably define a person at 24 weeks (or some standard of development). A person (a child) has legal rights and protections regardless of age or development. A part of a woman's body (pre-person standard) does not. This is the core problem which is fundamentally philosophical. Religious conservative politicians have no problem taking a stand. Opponents of this position must be equally adamant and forthright. We should not expect or want a panel of judges to make this determination as it is so fundamental. And it makes no sense to try to dodge the issue.
"Berg said the IPI is therefore exploring the idea of making signs for fuel pumps that in large type blast Gov. Pritzker for signing a doubling of the gas tax three years ago and in small type relaying the boilerplate legalese."
I've never supported or agreed with any statement from the IPI, until now.
So sick of hearing 'iconic'. An excellent example of the erosion of meaning and of the poor vocabulary of the perpetrators.
I think the proper contrast for Chicago Thinker is their appropriate audience participation in a panel discussion compared to attempting to ban or shout-down speakers. I also don't know why you would wonder if they apply the same critical thinking to other speakers or sources. They certainly didn't go easy on Jonah Goldberg, who is pretty conservative. I also think they were referring to media and academic elites as 'the regime' not the current Administration. And finally, they were doing exactly what journalist, politicians, and citizens need to do, even if you don't like their conservative/libertarian philosophy.
Hey, a bunch of us here have said that the mayor's removal of the Columbus statue was the equivalent of a "heckler's veto". I also think more than one of us has endorsed your promotion of ranked voting as a way to fix primaries. NFT's will eventually be recognized as the scam that they are. Fools and their money are soon parted. But is the person that sells you a flea circus a fraudster or just taking the opportunity to sell you something that you want to see? Speaking of eliminating the meaning of words: what is the definition of 'female', in any biological context, if it isn't the production of offspring? Or maybe we are saying that a 'woman' is not an adult, female, human. At some point perception confronts reality.