What follows is a very lightly edited transcription of a Twitter rant I went on this morning.
One of my heroes is a white woman who was deeply involved in the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. She’s someone who was hugely active in the movement at great personal risk and with great effect. I was honored to get to know her.
Once, years ago, she invited me to a panel she was on. A campus roundtable on the civil rights movement. There were three people on the panel: Herself, and a black professor and a black student leader from the campus. She gave a speech I don’t remember much of, as did the prof. Then it was the student’s turn to speak.
The student excoriated her. Attacked white people in the movement generally, and her in particular. Angrily. Vituperatively. Eloquently.
I was mortified. Horrified. I don’t remember the Q&A, how anyone responded. I just remember being shocked and so upset. Later, at dinner, I said something like “That must have been really hard.” She was confused. Asked what I was talking about. I told her. She looked at me, the penny dropped, and as best as I can remember, she said, “Well, he’s a nationalist.”
She didn’t feel betrayed or wounded or defensive. She wasn’t angry or embarrassed. At the same time, though, she wasn’t dismissing him. She understood his position. She’d had the discussion many times over the course of decades. She’d read what he’d read. It wasn’t new. She understood his position, and either respected it or didn’t. (Probably some of both, though that’s just a guess.) But the path he was on wasn’t the path she’d taken, and that was okay. She didn’t need to bring him around. That wasn’t her job.
If you’re a white person doing anti-racist work, “Listen to the voices of people of color” is crucial advice. Maybe the most crucial. One reason I’ve never told this story in print is that I don’t want it to seem like the moral is “You do you, white people!” But the reality is that just listening to people of color can never be the end of the journey. Because POC aren’t monolithic. (And for a hundred other reasons, but that’s a big one.)
But here’s a thing: If you’re white and a person of color thinks you’re racist, it’s not the end of the world. Your life isn’t over. They may be right, they may be wrong. (They’re more likely right than you think. Remember that.) But it’s not the end of the world.
Chait’s argument is that “racist” is so anathematizing — his word — that its intemperate use is not legitimate speech. And that’s bullshit. We win by having these conversations, not suppressing them. We, as white people, move forward by feeling that hot flush of shame I felt that night, and figuring out what to do with it.
Some people of color are jerks. Some women are jerks. Some gay people and trans people are jerks. Because many many people are jerks. But incivility isn’t the problem there. “PC” isn’t the problem there. Jargon and hashtags aren’t the problem.
If being online doing this work is too much, don’t do it. If you need help, lots of us want to help. I want to help. But there’s no way to get everyone to like you. There’s no way to be the perfect ally to everyone. There’s no cookie at the end of the tunnel. There’s no place where nobody thinks you’re an asshole. That’s not the goal.
The goal is to do good important work. The goal is to help make things better. The goal is to keep learning. The goal is to fuck up less and help more. The goal is to not hurt people through ignorance or malice or carelessness. The goal is to help to build something beautiful.
The goal is not to build a space where everyone loves you. Because not everyone is going to love you. And that’s okay. It has to be okay.
21 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 27, 2015 at 11:15 pm
AB
> “We win by having these conversations, not suppressing them.”
This is the very problem! What Chait is bemoaning is that these aren’t efforts to engage in honest discourse, but to suppress any opposition to the liberal orthodoxy!
January 28, 2015 at 8:21 am
Angus Johnston
I know Chait thinks so, AB, but that doesn’t make it so.
January 28, 2015 at 8:38 am
AB
It’s not just Chait who thinks so. Many, many people think so. And the examples he provided demonstrate that. I have no doubt that those were just a small sampling of examples he can provide because I know I can provide countless more Even Freddie DeBoer admitted as much! (http://bit.ly/1zybTBT)
January 28, 2015 at 8:43 am
aburstein
On a different point, it seems to me from this blog post that you’re perspective is that if a black person goes on a racist tirade against a white person (even one who is an elderly, respected civil rights advocate), then the right thing to do is to respectfully keep one’s mouths shut and just listen to him, since it’s simply his honest perspective that he’s entitled to express.
But when a white guy like Chait dares to politely express his frustration with how the public discourse is going… that is simply wrong, and he should just shut up and go away.
Did I get that right?
January 28, 2015 at 8:46 am
aburstein
Oops. “…your perspective…”, not “…you’re perspective…”
January 28, 2015 at 8:51 am
Angus Johnston
AB, most of the examples Chait provides of attempts to suppress speech are themselves examples of vigorous debate. I discussed this in some detail in my previous post on the subject, linked in the above essay:
https://studentactivism.net/2015/01/27/jonathan-chait-demands-to-be-liked/
January 28, 2015 at 9:14 am
aburstein
I’m not sure how you missed it, but many of the examples were of people who confessed to being cowed into silence or actual efforts to shut down debate. Freddie deBoer admitting that “The culture is one of attack, rather than of education,” does not describe an environment conducive to an open exchange of ideas. More such quotes:
“There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.”
Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in [online feminism] — not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.”
Former Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay told her, “Everyone is so scared to speak right now.”
And actually, what you write in the other post only seems prove the point that it’s not about engaging in genuine dialogue but about shutting down views you find problematic. You write there that when you find yourself facing that vehement reaction, the proper thing to do is, “apologize immediately if you can, step away from the keyboard if you can’t. Figure out how you screwed up, explain your mistake…” Does that sound like the makings of an honest and fair exchange of ideas?
January 28, 2015 at 9:15 am
Angus Johnston
A Burstein, nope. I disagree with every single piece of your characterization of my position:
I didn’t characterize the student’s tirade as racist, nor would I. I didn’t express any opinion as to how my friend should have responded to it. And I didn’t say Chait should shut up and go away — I engaged him in dialogue.
January 28, 2015 at 9:22 am
aburstein
I apologize then. I thought you’re description of “attacked white people in the movement generally,” as something inherently racist.
I know you didn’t express an opinion about how *she* should handle that situation, but I understood your conclusion was towards people in general based on that incident.
And you’re right, *you* didn’t advocate that Chait should shut up and go away, but that is indeed what so much of the online reaction to his piece is saying. I shouldn’t have conflated all those reactions with your own.
January 28, 2015 at 9:22 am
aburstein
Dang, I incorrectly used “you’re” again!
January 28, 2015 at 9:28 am
Angus Johnston
A Burstein, my previous reply was to your first two comments (under that handle). This one will be to your 9:14 am comment.
As I said in the other piece (and if you’d like to discuss it, maybe we can do that over there?), the speech acts that Chait deplores includes joking hashtags and Buzzfeed posts. He makes no attempt at all to distinguish robust debate from coercion. The fear of being “cast out” from an online community of like-minded people with whom you disagree may be real — hell, it may be devastating. But it’s a fear of having people not like you, and as I said in both of my pieces yesterday, you don’t have a right to have anybody like you.
As for the last paragraph of your comment, you left out the part where I recommended apologies and cooling-off periods in situations where you recognize that you made a mistake, said something wrong, and unintentionally caused offense. If you’re wrong, you should apologize, and if you’re wrong and you apologize, the whole thing is likely to blow over.
My point in saying so was to note that Chait doesn’t distinguish between such situations and those in which someone catches hell because a real and serious disagreement — a circumstance in which “the statement that lit the fuse was one that you stand by.”
January 28, 2015 at 9:35 am
Angus Johnston
Burstein (9:22), I don’t think it’s bigoted to hold the position that movements for liberation should be conducted by people who are directly experiencing the oppression that’s being fought against. In some situations I agree wholeheartedly with that position, in others I’d demur, but I don’t think holding it is evidence that you’re bigoted against the non-oppressed groups you’re not interested in working with.
As for whether I’d vocally disagree with someone expounding such a position, that would again depend on the circumstances and what I was trying to achieve. In general, though, I’d probably proceed from the assumption that someone advocating for separatism in political organizing wasn’t all that interested in a middle-aged straight white guy’s views on the topic.
January 30, 2015 at 6:45 am
Chait Criticizes Exactly The Kind Of Free Speech We Should Strive For | Alas, a Blog
[…] Some Thoughts on White Anti-Racists and Angry Black People | […]
January 30, 2015 at 10:13 am
Friday Links (Live and Let Die Edition) | Font Folly
[…] Some Thoughts on White Anti-Racists and Angry Black People. […]
January 30, 2015 at 10:10 pm
whdgm66
AB said: ‘I apologize then. I thought you’re description of “attacked white people in the movement generally,” as something inherently racist.’
Agnus: i think this is actually a moment to bring up the “can people of color be ‘racist’ against white people” debate…
January 30, 2015 at 10:23 pm
Angus Johnston
I’ve got that covered, WH:
https://studentactivism.net/2013/12/25/how-we-define-racism-and-why/
April 2, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Jon
So… would you say it’s just our lot in life to let people be infinitely angry at us for stuff our ancestors (and maybe select police officers) did?
April 3, 2015 at 9:14 am
Angus Johnston
Jon, I’m not sure what the phrase “let people be infinitely angry at us” means. Nobody needs my permission to be angry at me, so I’m honestly not quite sure what you’re asking. I could guess, but I’d be guessing, and I’d rather get clarification instead.
So feel free to take another crack at the question if you like.
May 2, 2015 at 2:52 am
Scott
Thank you for navigating this subject with such honesty and clarity. One of my essentializing labels (like it or not) is “fifty-one year old white South African male” (born in the then British colony of Northern Rhodesia, having spent my childhood in England). Lived in South Africa prety much from ’74 to the present.
Navigate is the word here: so much real shame, “anger-on-behalf-of-the-oppressed-other”, attributed guilt by association … contradictory identities… its been like swimming in a sea of powerful cross currents and undertows. A privileged white boy witnessing the dark years of Apartheid. – Guilt by association: no amount of altruism can slough off “the white man’s burden”. But that’s just it, isn’t it? My own identity IS a valid subject for “me”, but this ISN’T about “me”. It’s about justice and redress of centuries of institutionalized prejudice and cruelty towards millions of people. It’s about economic empowerment for the historically marginalized. The temptation for “whites like me” is to retreat into one of several self-defensive positions denying that we have been beneficiaries of privilege. We can cite the corrupt and kleptocratic leadership that has hijacked our young democracy, using this as a justification for our own disengagement. In my country the complexities of identity amongst whites is further complicated by differing histories between Afrikaners and English-speaking whites who were at war with each other a century ago. The divisions between these communities persist in some measure and influence perceptions of victimhood (Afrikaners as historical victims of British imperialist aggression, the concentration camps set up by the British etc). Historically white liberals not directly involved in revolutionary activities attempted to disavow the racist government of South Africa and distance themselves from it through art and literature, as if the artistic and literary space could make us appear less complicit both to ourselves and to the disenfranchised masses. But in my opinion these were often self-identity-serving strategies for us whites, an attempt to sublimate or express our own anxieties and sense of shame. Add to this the reactionary anger in many white South Africans – emerging in part from the anxiety of eroding privilege and the fear of the Black Other (we can see this in the proliferation of paranoid online rants) – it’s evident that white anti-racism can often be about sublimating our own guilt. The way out of the conundrum? Your article articulates a very convincing answer. YOU DON’T NEED TO BE LOVED OR THANKED. It’s so simple really, just get on and do what’s right and leave the rest to the gods. Motives are always mixed, or perceived to be so. But do good anyway.
May 3, 2015 at 1:01 am
Scott
By way of clarification, my statement ” no amount of altruism can slough off the white man’s burden” was not used in the sense of Rudyard Kipling’s poem but used to express the burden of historical injustice perpetrated by The white race against indigenous peoples across the globe during colonial expansion and dominance. I am also (paradoxically perhaps) acutely aware that all classifications and categories of “race” are problematic (What makes me “white”? my appearance? Is my culpability reduced if I have non-Caucasian genetic markers? Are constructs of race even valid?) None of this invalidates the reality of gross injustice both historically and in the present fabric of society.
February 21, 2016 at 12:17 pm
In Which I Quote Feminists Rather than Rebutt Benjamin Studebaker | Proof of Burden
[…] Valid & powerful & divisive […]