Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bask in the Crazy: Accepting Responsibility For Our Whiteness
Though I firmly believe that the bulk of a conservative’s time engaging liberal arguments should be spent debating their most pointed, nuanced positions, we should occasionally indulge ourselves by reveling in their worst arguments and fringe elements. Fringe elements like Ali Michael, who took to the pages of the Huffington Post this week to help us all cope with the, and I quote, “overwhelming oppressiveness of our whiteness”.
To call the piece’s logic tortured is to downplay its severity. The article is a war crime committed against rational thinking. At its core is the assumption that sin is transmitted from the actual perpetrators to their progeny. Whites are not merely beneficiaries of a form of privilege, but literally share partial blame for acts of injustice committed long before their birth. Social Justice is a jealous god, who visits the inequities of the (white) father onto, at minimum, the third and fourth generations.
Rachel Dolezal is a fascinating case study in White racial identity development.* She is stuck in the immersion/emersion stage, in which White people, having learned extensively about the realities of racism, and the ugly history of White supremacy in the U.S., “immerse” themselves in trying to figure out how to be White in our society, and “emerge” with a new relationship to Whiteness.
How is your relationship with your whiteness? Contentious? You are not alone.
I definitely experienced this. There was a time in my 20s when everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors… and my descendants.
Mankind is magnificently diverse, and has written near endless volumes on just about any topic you can imagine. Despite this, I strongly suspect that no author in history has ever opined on their hatred for their non-existent descendants. Hatred which, we should note, is based on the assumed color of their skin. Irony, thou art a harsh mistress.
I disliked my Whiteness, but I disliked the Whiteness of other White people more. I felt like the way to really end racism was to feel guilty for it, and to make other White people feel guilty for it too.
Guilty for what precisely? A history of slavery? That is indeed a great mark of shame on the white man…and just about every culture that has ever walked the Earth. Africans, Arabs, and Asians of every variety engaged in the horror of slavery alongside, and prior to, European cultures. Even a cursory glance at the history of Africans enslaving other Africans reveals this entire narrative of the uniquely evil white man to be a fraud.
In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early Islamic states of the western Sudan, including Ghana(750–1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275–1591), about a third of the population were slaves. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of slaves. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Igbo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of slaves. The population of the Kanem was about a third slave. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1396–1893). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of slaves. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in northern Nigeria and Cameroon was half-slave in the 19th century. It is estimated that up to 90% of the population of Arab–Swahili Zanzibar was enslaved. Roughly half the population of Madagascar was enslaved.
That white people engaged in slavery alongside all of the world’s other people only seems remarkable when we consider that whites were the first to end the practice.
Let’s not be sidetracked by historical context though. It is an irrefutable fact that the sins of our white ancestors are both worse than those of other races that committed the same crimes, and that these crimes have stained our souls. What can we do about it?
Daniel Tatum said we need to change this. We need to give White people new ways to identify as White. Because at the end of the day, we need White people to see that we are White. When we recognize and own our Whiteness, we can account for our own portion, our one 1/billionth of responsibility for what White people have done throughout history.
It is good to know that my inherited culpability for the horrors of slavery is diminishing as time goes on. Being only half-white, I bear ½ of a billionth of the responsibility for what white people have done throughout history. Presumably my unborn (and only mildly scorned) children will share ¼ of a billionth of the responsibility.
I’m not sure what happened with Rachel Dolezal. Maybe it was mental illness. Maybe it was a desire to connect to her adopted brothers. Maybe she felt safer and more loved in Black communities. Maybe it felt good to distance herself from the overwhelming oppressiveness of Whiteness — her own and that of her country and of her ancestors.
That Dolezal is a moral agent acting with free will, and has never committed any crimes against blacks, would seem a sufficient distancing from the overwhelming oppressiveness of the whiteness of her ancestors. Unless you believe that skin color transmits moral responsibility. In that case, sure, I can see why you might want to take things step farther. Also, you’re drooling on your shoes.
Rachel Dolezal’s actions are a potential pitfall for any White people on the journey towards recognizing the truth of what it means to be White and accepting responsibility for it. But we cannot not be White. And we cannot undo what Whiteness has done.
We cannot not be white. But we can cannot not judge ourselves and others by the acts of people long dead, who we were not alive to oppose and had neither our consent nor approval when they committed crimes against humanity.
Published in General
I’ve posted it before, and I’ll probably post it again in the future:
“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” – Ayn Rand
But giving them the flag will be a sign of reconciliation, and everything will be better.
Hello, my name is Steven W., and I’m a recovering white person.
Hello, my name is Stephanie W., and I’m a recovering man.
Midge, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but I saw your picture on the Ricochet Meet Up website, and I immediately thought, “wow, she’s so much prettier than her profile picture lets on.” That being said, the picture also revealed that you are, in fact, a white person, so I completely understand your decision to hide behind a photo of an ugly rattlesnake, even at the expense of obscuring your beauty.
I simply don’t agree with publicizing this nonsense and giving it credence by even acknowledging it.
My theory of attack is to ignore the idiocy and spend time and effort in celebrating the truth and the fiscally responsible. Less talk about the socialists; more talk about Rubio, Fiorina, Kasich, and Cruz and why they are able to provide some answers.
Too much defense and not enough offense.
The people of the Caucasus were once very white and had light colored hair. All the people of current Russian republics of the North Caucasus and the independent countries of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia were very white skinned people and Christian. That changed with the start of genocidal invasions of the Mongols in the 13th century and Christianity was only lost, everywhere but Georgia, in the genocidal invasions of Tamerlane in 1405. Then after that Persia launched several genocidal invasions of the region putting the Azeri in charge of Azerbaijan only in the 17th century. Turkey engaged in a horrible slave trade of all the white people in the region and depopulated Western Georgia. Modern day Armenia was ruled and populated with Turkish Muslims for over 400 years until the Russian army kicked them out and brought in thousands of Armenians fleeing Turkey in the late 19th century. Between the genocide, systematic rapes, massive slavery and constant wars the people of the Caucasus become a lot browner and gained much darker hair. Strange though that no one is ever really bothered by these crimes….
What backlash? The youth are onboard with this from what I can see. There are always exceptions, of course, but it’s been heading this way for awhile. I remember how little ridicule MTV got in one of their early seasons of the Real World when a white girl, admiring the rap culture of her black roommates said “My race is so boring”. That should have set off culture war alarms all over the place. Now that view has become commonplace. Being white is now our original sin, for which there is no absolution, only constant humiliation and begging forgiveness from the People’s Tribunal.
Ignoring it is offense?
The kind of the thinking the White hating writer is using will not take hold. In fact it is likely to cause a very ugly back lash. My fear in all of this is the chance that we will truly lose our classically liberal culture completely. At that point racial unrest becomes possible in a way it is not possible now. The thing is the liberals don’t even think about that and they damage they are doing. I hope articles like this stay very fringe.
The OP was a brilliant article however and incredible enjoyable to read. Thank you for taking the time to dismantle Ali Michael’s “thinking” on this subject.
You are certainly on target here EThompson.
The percentage of people who see this drivel and are swayed by it is vanishingly small. Shining a light on this non-sense makes the left’s racial politics appear crazy.
And that strategy has worked well for us, hasn’t it? We have zero time to waste and one of the reasons I like Fiorina although I agree with anonymous’s assessment of her tenure at HP, is that she’s moving on and talking about what can work.
You are gravely mistaken, this stuff is going bonkers everywhere and serious people are indulging it. This needs to be killed with fire.
On the contrary, I have time to waste. And time that I waste costs none of the candidates anything. It costs the Republican party nothing.
Your polite concession implies that such are not insane but only appear so. An error worth correcting.
Steven, the idea that mankind is culpable by virtue of its humanity surely pales in comparison to the idea that direct ancestors may be literally responsible for your conscious behavior. What you’re suggesting is that, based on the notion of original sin, a Christian is hypocritical if he doesn’t think we should punish the children of murderers or thieves. Under no Christian theology is this in any way accurate.
I think that we should ignore certain things, for sure, but we are not benefited if we ignore everything. Especially when we can address them swiftly and with obvious lightheartedness as the nonsense arguments that they are. The right does need to make fun of the left more than it is willing to do. Just as economics is not a zero-sum game, neither is political conversation. When I make fun of a liberal, I’m not taking a serious argument out of the mouth of some more intelligent (and productive) pundit.
Hmmn, only half-white? Based on your photo, it must be the top half. So, what’s the bottom half?
Racist.
Yep. I hate the whole human race.
I’m happy for you because I do not.
I recently read (still hunting down the link) that there is a new group of white people called the “Ali Michaeles” who tatoo their legs heads and hands and necks — actually any exposed white flesh — to make a statement contra their present oppressive white flesh and that of the past white flesh of their ancestors. I also recall that a splinter group, claiming to be the real “Ali Michales”, believes that each member must tatoo his whole body — not just the exposed parts. The two groups, needless to say, do not get along.
This past weekend in an upscale coffee shop in Boston’s Back Bay neighborhood the two Ali Michaeles groups engaged in a vicious fight hurling croissants at each other with great velocity. Boston police were called in to separate the two warring factions and some were rushed to Mass Gen Hospital for stress-related injuries after a full veinte latte was flung at the ‘whole-body’ Al Michaeles destroying thousands of dollars’ worth of Christopher Kane sweaters and NPR dialed-in smart phones…(breaking)….
I challenge you to point out where I said a word about punishment.
Here’s a rule of thumb when it comes to deciding whether or not to put stuff in my mouth: 1) Is it food? 2) Is it alcoholic? 3) Did you get my permission to put it there? When it comes to your words, the answer is “no” on all counts.
Having married a Georgian woman I can vouch for the beauty of the Georgian people and one woman in particular.
Steven, I don’t really see how this follows from my comment. The point is not that you’ve stated anything about punishment (as I thought was evident based on the “what you’re suggesting” part), but that the point you made about Christianity was inaccurate for the same reason my follow up would also be inaccurate. The biblical culpability of mankind (via original sin) is not the same as individual culpability from individual past actions.
Frank,
Once upon a time I would have agreed with you that the best approach is to engage our opponents best arguments and ignore their worst. However, in the age of social media and the rapid dissemination of poorly thought out and emotional arguments we are witnessing the deterioration of important national, social and cultural institutions based not on the strength and quality of the arguments but on the ability to rapidly and widely appeal to emotion without giving any thought to the underlying argument. We live in an age where we can destroy an important institution with a meme. Simply engaging the sound liberal arguments and ignoring the weak ones is a recipe for failure, the results of which we are seeing before our eyes in real time. We must change tactics.
Ryan, forgive my economy with words, but I only have 250, so I’m omitting a tremendous amount. My statement “I challenge you to point out where I said a word about punishment” was an invitation to explain your assertion that my comment suggested “a Christian is hypocritical if he doesn’t think we should punish [emphasis added] the children of murderers or thieves.” The OP criticized “the assumption that sin is transmitted from the actual perpetrators to their progeny.” I simply pointed out that the Christian doctrine of Original Sin is based on that very assumption. That assumption doesn’t suggest “we should punish” people for their ancestors’ sins, which it’d have to for your statement “the point you made about Christianity was inaccurate for the same reason my follow up would also be inaccurate” to be true.
You also implied that it follows from my comment that Original Sin involves both “the idea that direct ancestors may be literally responsible for your conscious behavior” and “individual culpability from individual past actions.” Non sequitur. “The assumption that sin is transmitted from the actual perpetrators to their progeny” isn’t the same as saying any of our ancestors were at fault for our actions, nor that their sin resulted from something we did (i.e. “culpability”).
So Ryan, you could be right that the point I made on Christianity was inaccurate. Regardless, nothing you’ve said thus far gives any evidence to that effect, so I stick by it.
Eh… only certain Christians perceive of Original Sin like that. Adherence to the doctrine you state is not necessary for being a Christian – not even a Nicene Christian.
Christians agree “original sin” is something we bear for being human and fallen. Augustine perceived of it being something passed “genetically” from parent to child – sort of. I don’t know if the Christians before him did, particularly. And even today, not every Christian is an Augustinian.
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” is not terribly clear on which mechanism causes humanity to partake of “Adam’s sin”. Nor is “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”
Is it possible you’re construing Christian doctrine too narrowly, and that’s leading to misunderstanding?
I keep thinking you’re talking about Al Michaels, who of course is much too sensible and full of awesome to hold such idiotic opinions.
Totally, I’ll accept that. My statement that “the Christian doctrine of Original Sin is based on that very assumption” treats Christianity as a monolith in regards to this particular doctrine. If I understand correctly, you’re telling me that not all denominations/flavors of Christianity have it as an article of faith (and/or have something kinda like it, but different in some fundamental way), so based on what you said, I admit to having made a mistake in taking something that’s part of some denominations/flavors of Christianity and mischaracterizing it as universal in Christianity.
Thanks for teaching me about that.