This diary was prompted by a recent discussion with the irreplaceable and irrepressible Denise Oliver-Velez, to whom I am indebted for her (exceedingly patient) tutoring about the nature and varied manifestations and effects of racism in our white supremacist society. In particular, she provided the crucial notions of tacit and passive racism, that are conceptual points of departure for what follows.
What does it mean to be racist?
Does it refer only to explicit, obvious, knowing statements and acts of racial prejudice?
In a white supremacist society, a society founded upon racism and the genocide of People of Color and indigenous populations, a society whose legal and economic framework, throughout its entire history, reifies white supremacy and white privilege, any attempt to identify aspects of our political and economic institutions, or efforts to effect changes in them, without accounting for the legacy of racism and racial discrimination-— so called ‘race-blind’ or ‘race-neutral’ polices and approaches-- will only serve to reinforce the racism that permeates every domain of our society, every element of our culture.
In a previous diary, written not long after the 2016 election, I highlighted the work of Eduard Bonilla-Silva, and his essential book ‘Racism without Racists’:
A crucial perspective on race and racism in America comes from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva: Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America (Fourth Edition, 2014)
His observations about the transition from the overt racism of the Jim Crow era to the invisible framework of racial dominance—in his terminology, structural racism, are eerily prescient, and all too relevant in the days and weeks since Trump’s election:
In the third edition of the book I argued that Obama’s election was not a miracle, but an expected outcome that reflected the sedimentation of the “new racism” regime that had emerged in the 1970s (for more on this regime, see chapter 2 in this edition). Specifically, I stated that Obama’s election did not represent “racial progress” or signified a rupture with either the racial order or the dominant racial ideology at play in the nation, namely, color-blind racism. This argument was important, as Americans at the time (somewhat less so today) believed Obama’s election had magically taken us to the racial Promised Land of honey and milk.
The second sociopolitical reason for reengaging readers is my belief that it is imperative to explain the coexistence in America of crude and vulgar antiminority sentiment and actions alongside the ideology (and its corresponding behaviors) I label in this book as color-blind racism. To anticipate the comments I will offer in chapters 2 and 11, (1) racial orders are never “pure,” as elements of the past (and even of the future) often coexist with the dominant ways of conducting racial business, (2) coercion has always been central to the maintenance of racial domination,1 and (3) despite the rise in racist violence, the practices I label as typical of the “new racism” period are still the dominant ones in America (more prevalent and central). (pp. xiii-xiv)
Although there is much about Bonilla-Silva’s work that is important for understanding the framework of racial domination (and similarly, sexual and gender domination by heterosexual males), it is his debunking of assertions of ‘I’m not a racist’ that I see as crucial as a starting point; we have to recognize the nature and extent of the problem if we are to begin to address it:
Nowadays, except for members of white supremacist organizations,1 few whites in the United States claim to be “racist.” Most whites assert they “don’t see any color, just people”; that although the ugly face of discrimination is still with us, it is no longer the central factor determining minorities’ life chances; and, finally, that, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,2 they aspire to live in a society where “people are judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.” More poignantly, most whites insist that minorities (especially blacks) are the ones responsible for whatever “race problem” we have in this country. They publicly denounce blacks for “playing the race card,” for demanding the maintenance of unnecessary and divisive race-based programs, such as affirmative action, and for crying “racism” whenever they are criticized by whites.3 Most whites believe that if blacks and other minorities would just stop thinking about the past, work hard, and complain less (particularly about racial discrimination), then Americans of all hues could “all get along.”4
… regardless of whites’ “sincere fictions,”5 racial considerations shade almost everything in America. Blacks and dark-skinned racial minorities lag well behind whites in virtually every area of social life; they are about three times more likely to be poor than whites, earn about 40 percent less than whites, and have about an eighth of the net worth that whites have.6 They also receive an inferior education compared to whites, even when they attend integrated institutions.7 In terms of housing, black-owned units comparable to white-owned ones are valued at 35 percent less.8 Blacks and Latinos also have less access to the entire housing market because whites, through a variety of exclusionary practices by white realtors and homeowners, have been successful in effectively limiting their entrance into many neighborhoods.9 Blacks receive impolite treatment in stores, in restaurants, and in a host of other commercial transactions.10 Researchers have also documented that blacks pay more for goods such as cars and houses than do whites.11 Finally, blacks and dark-skinned Latinos are the targets of racial profiling by the police, which, combined with the highly racialized criminal court system, guarantees their overrepresentation among those arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, and if charged for a capital crime, executed.12 Racial profiling on the highways has become such a prevalent phenomenon that a term has emerged to describe it: driving while black.13 In short, blacks and most minorities are “at the bottom of the well.”14 How is it possible to have this tremendous degree of racial inequality in a country where most whites claim that race is no longer relevant? (pp. 1-3, emphasis added)
A fundamental element of Bonilla-Silva’s survey of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic landscape of America is that whites are able to operate within a framework that is demonstrably racist, while disclaiming any racism on their part.
This diary is an attempt to consider the presence of passive and tacit racism on the left as social facts.1
Racism is not limited to its most overt and explicit forms:
… sociologists have uncovered new forms of racism that are expressed not in avowed racist attitudes but rather in contextually specific moral and symbolic principles that stereotype subordinated racial groups as undeserving and thereby justify existing racial inequalities. For example, surveys repeatedly show that many whites support racial equality in principle but resist policies to implement it(e.g., affirmative action and reparations). Kinder and Sears(1981) attribute this principle–implementation gap to‘symbolic racism’, which merges a genuine belief in the universalistic principles of Western liberal democracy with stereotypes and moral resentments (rooted in childhood socialization) toward ‘irresponsible’ blacks. Bobo et al.’s(1997) concept of ‘laissez-faire racism’ also highlights persistent antiblack (and anti native) stereotyping and a tendency to blame blacks (and other minorities) for their social problems despite increased support for racial equality in principle. Unlike symbolic racism, however, they argue that (white) opposition to racial equality policies is rooted in perceived racial group threat (Blumer, 1958), which is “triggered when the dominant group’s sense of entitlement to resources and privileges appears threatened by subordinate group gains or aspirations” (Denis,2012: p. 456). Similarly, ‘colorblind racism’ refers to a set of frames, styles, and scripts that are used to explain and justify the racial status quo without sounding racist (Bonilla-Silva,2010). (For additional variations on the new racism theme,see Quillian, 2006.)
The political left is not immune to racism— both explicit and implicit— and progressives have been confronted many times about its pernicious presence within progressive groups and organizations:
The very means of class control by the rich is the least understood. White supremacy is more than just a set of ideas or prejudices. It is national oppression. Yet to most white people, the term conjures up images of the Nazis or Ku Klux Klan rather than the system of white skin privileges that really undergird the Capitalist system in the U.S. Most white people, Anarchists and other radicals included, believe, in essence, Black people are "the same" as whites and we should just fight around "common issues" rather than deal with "racial matters," if they see any urgency in dealing with the matter at all.
Some will not raise it in such a blunt fashion. They will say that "class issues should take precedence," but it means the same thing. They believe it's possible to put off the struggle against white supremacy until after the revolution, when in fact there will be no revolution if white supremacy is not attacked and defeated first. They won't win a revolution in the U.S. until they fight to improve the lot of Blacks and oppressed people who are being deprived of their democratic rights, as well as being super-exploited as workers, and enslaved as a people.
Almost from the very inception of the North American socialist movement, the simple-minded economist position that all Black and white workers have to do to wage a revolution is to engage in a "common (economic) struggle" has been used to avoid struggle against white supremacy. In fact, the white left has always taken the chauvinist position that since the white working class is the revolutionary vanguard anyway, why worry about an issue that will "divide the class"? Historically Anarchists have not even brought up the matter of "race politics," as one Anarchist referred to it the first time this pamphlet was published. This is a total evasion of the issue.
In Ideology, Racism, and Critical Social Theory, Tommie Shelby describes how racism can inform a person’s worldview, and thus their ideology, outside of their awareness:
… it is critically important to recognize that forms of social consciousness (or at least some elements of them) maybe held without full conscious awareness. Though an individual, if queried, will typically know whether he accepts a particular proposition, he may not be completely, if at all, aware that he is in the grip of a particular picture of the world. A form of social consciousness may be only implicit in the behavioral dispositions, utterances, conduct, and practices of social actors.16 The system of belief that Anthony Appiah calls racialism, for example, is probably almost never explicitly held or contemplated by the typical racist.17 Moreover, while such implicit beliefs can at times be coherently articulated and defended by the individuals who hold them, more often they cannot. These beliefs are quite frequently confused and may be expressed only in the form of stereotypes, clichés, and fragmented narratives. (pg.161, emphasis added)
I will refer to these various cognitive defects as “ideological illusions”or simply “illusions,” as these expressions succinctly convey the sense I want to communicate, namely, that of distorted, biased, or misleading representations of reality.39 (pg. 166)
Ideological illusions are certainly a part of social reality, as they are often the media through which we coordinate social action and the schema through which we define our identities. But we can acknowledge this extremely important point while recognizing that the representational content of an ideological illusion, qua claim to knowledge, is not an accurate representation of reality.Now, given that Marxists maintain that certain normative belief systems—religious,moral, political, aesthetic, and so on—can be ideological, we need to know in what sense such beliefs can be “illusory.”40 Here I suggest that we take as little for granted as possible. So, for example, we should not simply assume that antirealism holds with respect to normative beliefs; that is, we should not assume that normative beliefs are not literally true or false (noncognitivism) or that all normative beliefs must be false because they are based on a false ontology (error theory). Of course, normative antirealism may be true; however, this should not be a presupposition of ideology-critique but rather something it may set out to prove. Moreover, by leaving open the question of whether we can have knowledge of “normative facts,” we allow that there may be ideological illusions that depend on a failure to appreciate some normative truth—for example, that capitalist property relations are unjust. Thus, whether particular normative beliefs or normative beliefs in general are ideological illusions must be treated as a substantive question for concrete ideology-critique.4 (pg. 167)
To hold a belief with a false consciousness is to hold it while being ignorant of, or self-deceived about, the real motives for why one holds it: the individual who suffers from a false consciousness would like to believe that she accepts a given belief system (solely) because of the epistemic considerations in favor of it, but, as a matter of fact, she accepts it (primarily) because of the influence of noncognitive motives that operate, as Marx was fond of saying,“behind her back,” that is, without her conscious awareness.49 Thus, a form of social consciousness can be both held with a false consciousness and false.Now if a belief is held with a false consciousness—because of the unconscious influence of noncognitive motives—then it is held irrationally.50 Those with a false consciousness cling to a system of belief, not because of its epistemic warrant, but because it serves some noncognitive interest. (pg. 170, emphasis added)
Purportedly ‘race-blind’ or ‘race-neutral’ approaches to address economic inequality are examples of the sort of false consciousness that Shelby is speaking of. A progressive who asserts that economic inequality can be addressed without taking into account the pervasive and pernicious effects of racism and discriminatory practices believes: a) they themselves are not racist, and aren’t perpetuating the racist framework of our socioeconomic and sociopolitical systems and institutions; b) such policies will be effective in addressing inequality generally; c) the ongoing effects of racism and discrimination will be remediated by race-blind/race-neutral polices. The progressive who holds such views of themselves, and imagines that race-blind policies are even possible, is tacitly subscribing to a patently racist ideology:
The average Black person, relative to the average White person, is approximately three times as likely to live in poverty, almost six times as likely to be incarcerated, and controls only a twentieth of the wealth (specifically, an average of no wealth). Tellingly, each of these racial gaps has increased in recent years. Education is often considered to be the great panacea of social ills, but here too inequalities abound. The quality of K–12 education for Blacks is inferior to Whites, and Blacks are significantly less likely to graduate from high school, and to attend or graduate from college. And one final grim statistic: The average Black person can expect to live four years less than the average White person. (pg. 1)
Racial colorblindness is an ideology on the rise, and it maybe argued that colorblindness is now in fact the dominant racial ideology in the United States (e.g., Bonilla-Silva,2003; Carr, 1997; Mazzocco, Cooper, & Flint, 2012; Plaut, 2010).Typically, racial colorblindness entails opposition to racial categories and categorical social perception. Instead, a colorblind advocate might argue, we should focus on individual qualities such as personality and behavior. This prohibition against racial categorization often extends to institution sand social policies. Hence, proponents of racial colorblindness might oppose both discussions of racial topics in school settings and also social programs such as race-based affirmative action. More extreme forms of racial colorblindness would even outlaw the recording of racial categories in official contexts (e.g., census data collection, arrest and incarceration records, education and economic indexes, etc.).Another effect of the colorblind movement is the suppression of conversations in which race is implicated. Correspondingly, individuals, and particularly racial minorities, who persist in the use of racial categories are marginalized as perpetrators of “reverse racism” or as players of the“race card.” In light of the extreme costs still associated with race discussed above, this stance may appear curious. (pg.2)
All else equal, to the extent that racial disparities, prejudice, and discrimination are perceived to (a) be things of the past, or (b) at least diminishing at an acceptable rate, racial colorblindness makes more sense (Mazzocco et al., 2006). Put simply, if there is no problem, there is no need for discussion. This premise would appear to be flatly contradicted by the racial gap statistics provided above. However, most people do not have access to these kinds of group-level statistics. And to the extent that Whites do not commonly encounter racial minorities in their everyday life, the most salient exemplars will often be successful minorities such as Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James,and Barack Obama—further creating the impression that racial gaps are a thing of the past and skewing related race-based beliefs and attitudes (Mazzocco & Brunner, 2012)…
Perhaps most importantly, Whites are likely to distinguish between statistical gaps, like those discussed above,and opportunity gaps. Although statistical gaps may be acknowledged, Whites are much less likely to perceive opportunity gaps, wherein social and economic access is unequally limited by race. Instead, explanations of racial gaps are often explained as the result of suboptimal minority cultures (e.g., welfare cultures, cultures of entitlement, gang culture, etc.).This distinction between racial and opportunity gaps relates to the belief that racial disparities will tend to naturally diminish over time. (pg. 3, emphasis added)
The popularity of racial colorblindness among Whites suggests that it is a flexible concept that can be adapted to fit the needs of different factions within society. Consistent with this perspective,Knowles, Lowery, Hogan and Chow (2009) proposed that support for racial colorblindness among Whites may be based either upon distributive justice concerns (a desire that resources and opportunities are balanced proportionately among the races), or upon concerns with procedural justice(making sure that race does not affect resource or opportunity allocations). The former concern is aimed at preventing harm to minorities based on racial discrimination. The latter concern is more likely aimed at protecting White dominance by justifying opposition to programs such as affirmative action. Across a series of studies, Knowles and colleagues demonstrated that perceptions of racial threat and endorsement of social hierarchies both predicted support for an ingroup-serving variety of colorblindness. (pg. 5)
If racially driven economic disparities will simply evaporate on their own by instituting what are characterized as progressive economic policies, and in turn all manner of social injustice similarly will wither, then racial discrimination need not be considered salient in creating policies, and the person advocating such a view can claim— to themselves, as much as to others— they are not promoting a racist socioeconomic framework.
But they are.
Consider the following, which provides a glimpse of how seemingly unconnected and ‘objective’, ‘neutral’ (what’s more objective and neutral than ‘data’, right?) policies and practices by disparate actors perpetuate racial discrimination in every aspect of a Person of Color’s life:
Math is racist: How data is driving inequality
Denied a job because of a personality test? Too bad -- the algorithm said you wouldn't be a good fit. Charged a higher rate for a loan? Well, people in your zip code tend to be riskier borrowers. Received a harsher prison sentence? Here's the thing: Your friends and family have criminal records too, so you're likely to be a repeat offender. (Spoiler: The people on the receiving end of these messages don't actually get an explanation.)
The models O'Neil writes about all use proxies for what they're actually trying to measure. The police analyze zip codes to deploy officers, employers use credit scores to gauge responsibility, payday lenders assess grammar to determine credit worthiness. But zip codes are also a stand-in for race, credit scores for wealth, and poor grammar for immigrants…
… consider the fact that nearly half of U.S. employers ask potential hires for their credit report, equating a good credit score with responsibility or trustworthiness.
This "creates a dangerous poverty cycle," O'Neil writes. "If you can't get a job because of your credit record, that record will likely get worse, making it even harder to work."
Credit scores in America perpetuate racial injustice. Here's how.
For decades, banks have systematically redlined black and Latino neighborhoods, refusing to make conventional loans or locate branches in non-white and lower-income areas, notwithstanding laws that obligate banks to meet the credit needs of all communities they serve, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. Thanks to financial services deregulation and the advent of asset-backed securitization, a multi-billion dollar “fringe” financial system has filled the void, characterized by high-cost, destabilizing products and services, from payday loans to check-cashers – which banks typically also own or finance.
People and communities of color have been disproportionately targeted for high-cost, predatory loans, intrinsically risky financial products that predictably lead to higher delinquency and default rates than non-predatory loans. As a consequence, black people and Latinos are more likely than their white counterparts to have damaged credit.
How Algorithms Can Bring Down Minorities' Credit Scores
Analyzing people’s social connections may lead to a new way of discriminating against them.
Someone living in a low-income community, for example, is likely to have friends and family with similar income levels. It’s more likely that someone in their extended network would have a poor repayment history than someone in the network of an upper-middle class white-collar worker—if a scoring algorithm took that fact into account, it might lock out the low-income person just based on his or her social environment.
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act doesn’t allow creditors in the United States to discriminate based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age—but taking into account a person’s network could allow creditors to end-run those requirements.
Race-blind/race-neutral policy prescriptions are a form of false consciousness, precisely because a progressive espousing such views is unable or unwilling to acknowledge that such views are intrinsically racist:
Colorblind Ideology Is a Form of Racism
A colorblind approach allows us to deny uncomfortable cultural differences.
At its face value, colorblindness seems like a good thing — really taking MLK seriously on his call to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It focuses on commonalities between people, such as their shared humanity.
However, colorblindness alone is not sufficient to heal racial wounds on a national or personal level. It is only a half-measure that in the end operates as a form of racism…
In a colorblind society, White people, who are unlikely to experience disadvantages due to race, can effectively ignore racism in American life, justify the current social order, and feel more comfortable with their relatively privileged standing in society (Fryberg, 2010). Most minorities, however, who regularly encounter difficulties due to race, experience colorblind ideologies quite differently. Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives…
Many Americans view colorblindness as helpful to people of color by asserting that race does not matter (Tarca, 2005). But in America, most underrepresented minorities will explain that race does matter, as it affects opportunities, perceptions, income, and so much more. When race-related problems arise, colorblindness tends to individualize conflicts and shortcomings, rather than examining the larger picture with cultural differences, stereotypes, and values placed into context. Instead of resulting from an enlightened (albeit well-meaning) position, colorblindness comes from a lack of awareness of racial privilege conferred by Whiteness (Tarca, 2005). White people can guiltlessly subscribe to colorblindness because they are usually unaware of how race affects people of color and American society as a whole. (emphasis added)
The most prominent display of tacit and passive racism among progressives in the past two years has been the preoccupation, by many who consider themselves to be progressives, with the ‘White Working Class’, and the ‘economic anxiety hypothesis’ to explain the votes of whites for the GOP presidential candidate in 2016.
To fixate on the notion that ‘other reasons than racism’ can explain these white voters’ motives, and that they should be a focus of our political efforts (while simultaneously believing these voters will be receptive to progressive economic policies, and so can be persuaded to vote for Democratic candidates in the future) is for all practical purposes an effort (perhaps unwitting) to remove racism from the equation, to deny its presence, to ignore its dominant influence in 2016, and to ignore its role in the elections of 2017 and 2018 as well.
It cannot be overstated how destructive the mythology of the ‘White Working Class economic anxiety hypothesis’ is, not only to progressive political efforts generally, but to lives and well-being of People of Color, because it sustains the harmful fiction that racism and inequality can be understood in isolation from each other:
The Rules Are Not Neutral: “Colorblind” Policies Drive Racial Inequality
Rewrite the Racial Rules argues that understanding racial and economic inequality among black Americans requires acknowledging the racial rules that undergird our economy and society. Those rules—laws, policies, institutions, regulations, and normative practices—are the driving force behind the patently unequal life chances and opportunities for too many individuals in our country…
Unlike other reports that focus exclusively on either social or economic issues, Rewrite the Racial Rules looks at the web of rules and resulting inequities across six domains: income, wealth, education, criminal justice, health, and democratic participation. It illustrates how our persistent race and gender gaps in income are linked with yawning racial wealth gaps; how trends toward re-segregation in our school system are linked with increasingly harsh penal rules and trends in mass incarceration; and how the toxic stress of racism and of countless inequities impacts the health of black men, women, and children for generations. And it describes the ways in which historic and recent efforts to curb voting access makes it difficult to build power and lift up the voices of those who are most impacted by the racial rules.
Over the past four decades, “race-neutral” policies have helped drive these—and so many other—disparities and inequities. But these last 40 years should be all the proof we need that policies that are race-neutral and colorblind in theory are, in practice, anything but.
How might we, as progressives, counteract the presence of tacit and passive racism in ourselves, and our organizations? The Catalyst Project points the way:
15 Tools for White Anti-Racist Activists
- Learn about the history of white supremacy and how it connects with capitalism, imperialism, hetero-patriarchy, ableism, and other systems of oppression. For suggestions about where to start, check out the reader from the 2015 Anne Braden Program. There, you’ll find articles, video clips, essays, and poems on the topics referenced below.
- Study the feminist thought of Women of Color and queer people of color and develop your understanding of the intersections of oppression and privilege. Angela Davis, bell hooks, Andrea Smith, Audre Lorde, Audre Lorde Project, Barbara Smith, Cherrie Moraga, Gloria Anzaldua, Betita Martinez, Incite! Miss Major, Women of Color Against Violence, #BlackLivesMatter, Sylvia Rivera, TGI Project.
- Think through how white supremacy impacts the issues you work on. How do the issues you work on affect communities of color? How is leadership structured in your organization, communities of faith, network? How do these structures challenge or reinforce white supremacy? Are the folks at the table of decision-making the same folks who experience the impacts of those decisions?
- Learn about social movements led by people of color and indigenous people past and present in the U.S. and around the world. Look for examples both inside of and outside the U.S. These are all great resources for learning about social movements: Black Girl Dangerous, Colorlines, Feminist Wire, Leaving Evidence Blog, Left Turn Magazine, Upping the Anti, Organizing Upgrade, Left Roots, Freedom Archives, Social Justice Journal.
- Seek out information about the struggles of Black, Indigenous, Arab, Latino, Asian, and Pacific Islander people where you live. Get on email lists, go to events, volunteer to support, and/or become a donor. Getting on the email lists of racial and economic justice organizations is a great way to start. You can also look for in the event listings in your local newspaper. If you’re already connected to a social justice organization, you could start finding more organizations by seeing who they work in coalition with. If you’re not already connected, look for news articles in your local paper on progressive issues, see if there’s a local social justice foundation that lists its donors, or check out local member organizations like national networks like Jobs with Justice, Detention Watch Network, Right to the City Alliance, Grassroots Global Justice, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. Going to events, volunteering to support, bringing friends and family to help out, and becoming a donor are all great ways to learn more.
- Remember that education is an important part of organizing, but a workshop will not set anyone free. Offer concrete support to people of color led organizations that you share political affinity with, and organize others to do the same. This can look like a range of things from volunteering to childcare, fundraising, or office support work, to getting your organization to participate in campaigns led by people of color, to developing longer term political alliances.
- Know who and what you are accountable to. Consider both specific organizers and organizations that you have relationships with, and the broader set of politics that guide your decision-making. Build intentional relationships with activists or organizers of color who share your values and politics. Look for ways to support their work, and seek out feedback on yours. Make sure you’re giving as much or more than you’re getting.
- In mostly or all white organizations, work to build relationships of trust and accountability with anti-racist organizations and communities of color. See if there are ways to do solidarity work and eventually, if there are ways to collaborate. Develop your organization’s work with goals of challenging white supremacy in society and building anti-racist principles in white communities.
- Intentionally lift up and build the leadership of people of color in your organizing. From who speaks to the media or at rallies or events to who determines demands and strategy for campaigns, make every opportunity you can to support, highlight, and develop the leadership of people of color, especially those directly impacted by the issues you work on. This means supporting the leadership, vision, and power of folks of color over the long haul, not tokenizing or simply trying to diversify your organization.
- Regularly assess your organization’s messaging, demands, recruitment tactics, decision-making structure, coalitional work, internal practices and culture: is anti-racism a priority? is feminist practice a priority? and challenging ableism and economic oppression? Honestly and collectively review where there is room for improvement, and make plans to make change.
- Practice humility and receiving feedback with an open heart. One of the side effects of privilege often means we are told that all of our opinions are the most valuable, smart, and right. Hearing otherwise gracefully is an important skill to gain. The mistakes are inevitable; the process of learning from those mistakes requires humble and honest reflection. The more work you do, the more mistakes you will make. Remember that feedback on our practice of anti-racism is often someone who we’ve impacted, but who is still willing to give us feedback. This is a gift toward our growth. Don’t be distracted if the wrapping is hard to look at.
- Study the history of white people working against racism. You could start by watching “Southern Patriot” about Anne Braden, or read “Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power” by Amy Sonnie and James Tracy.
- Find an anti-racist mentor who has more experience than you, who will share lessons from their history, help you learn from your own experiences, and support you to think through questions you have and challenges you face.
- Build intentional relationships with white activists or organizers who share your values and politics. Having a support network of other white people striving to practice anti-racism is crucial to this work, so we are not relying on people of color to hold our learning or emotional processes when we make mistakes.
- Explore your own stake in collective liberation. How have you been negatively impacted by systems of oppression, even when you’re on the “benefitting” side? How would you benefit from the success of freedom struggles? Practice talking about racism and other systems of oppression, as well as your vision for the world you’re trying to build.
1. “Manners of acting, thinking and feeling engaged by individuals because and on condition that other members of a social group are represented as engaged in these (or others) ways of acting, thinking, and feeling”. (Greenwood, 2003, pg. 96)
related diaries:
There’s no fixing economic inequality without addressing systemic economic racism. (Nov. 27, 2018)
‘Black Marxism’: To fight economic inequality, fight systemic economic racism. (long read). (Nov. 1, 2017)