“I don’t think I’ve ever come across anything that’s made me aware of my race,” says Kathie, a middle-aged woman from Buffalo, NY. She was interviewed in 2014 as part of the Whiteness Project, an interactive investigation of what white or partially white people think about their own race, conducted by Whitney Dow.
Kathie’s insistence that she doesn’t, and shouldn’t think about her race neatly underlines why the Whiteness Project is necessary and useful. For the most part, white people don’t have to confront, or address race; whiteness is unmarked and unremarked. For most purposes in popular culture Spike Lee is a black director; James Cameron is just a director. Barack Obama is a black president; George Washington, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan were just presidents. Part of the magic of being white is that you’re the default, rather than the exception.
In defining white people by their whiteness, the Whiteness Project insists that whiteness isn’t normal or natural. Instead, whiteness is a specific, constructed, created identity, which white people acquiesce to, or embrace, or fidget inside of, with varying degrees of grace and insight. “So does the Whiteness Project re-center white people?” Steven W. Thrasher asked at the Guardian when the first round of interviews came out in 2014. “Yes,” he concludes, “but that’s part of the point: Dow wants his subjects to be the center of attention, and the reason for their viewers’ discomfort about white people’s views on race.”
Often, the very thing that seems to define whiteness, in fact, is the resistance to defining or seeing whiteness. In a new series of discussions with millenials in Dallas, TX, released in April 2016, the Whiteness Project interviewees repeatedly think about whiteness in terms of refusing to think about whiteness. Ari, 17, talks about how he’s stigmatized for being Jewish, and points out, perceptively, that while he doesn’t consider Judaism to be a race, other people do, which affects him. But when he talks about whiteness he insists that “the color of my skin has nothing to do with my everyday experiences”—as if his experience and those of black Jewish people would be interchangeable, or, perhaps, as if he hasn’t considered that black Jewish people exist. Sarah, 18, similarly insists, “I never think about my race…my age and my gender has a bigger influence on what I think of as my identity.” More aggressively, Leilani, 17—who is part Asian— insists, “If we want to get rid of racism, stop talking about racism.” For her, talk about whiteness is no talk; when she thinks about her white identity, she thinks about not thinking.
Other interviewees are more willing to try to see past whiteness’ invisibility. Lena, 21, whose father is Arab-American, talks about how she didn’t want him to come to school events because she would be teased or insulted when people realized she wasn’t white (enough.) “Being realistic, I think it’s good that I don’t look too much of anything, because just getting jobs…it’s much better for you if you look white.” Carson, 18, says, “it’s hard to know that I’ll be given more. And it makes me call into question my merit.” Connor, 24, talks about dealing drugs and notes that “there’s been plenty of times where I’ve consciously taken advantage of the fact that I was white.” He adds, ” I would be in jail if I was not white.”
Lena, Carson, and Connor are all talking about privilege, and about the fact that whiteness is not just invisibility, but power. Invisibility and power, are in fact intertwined. You stay out of jail because you’re white, but then the whiteness becomes invisible, so suddenly you have no jail record because of personal merit, rather than because of the color of your skin. Or, as Lena says, you can get a job because your white, and then having the job on your resume is attributed to merit, rather than individual whiteness, when you go on your next job interview. In that sense, the Whiteness Project, by making whiteness more recognizable, undermines the notion that white people come by their success through personal awesomeness alone. As such, it works to confront, or destabilize, racism.
Or that would be the optimistic take. When the first batch of videos in the Whiteness Project was released, there was a certain amount of skepticism on social media from black viewers, many of whom wondered why white people needed to be given more space to talk. And some of those criticisms resonate with this second round of interviews as well. What good does it do, really, for Connor to explain that his whiteness is a get out of jail free card? To what degree is any particular anti-racist agenda advanced by listening to Chaney, 18, explain that she isn’t responsible for the history of racism and doesn’t want to pay reparations. “You can’t get things for people who are dead,” she says intensely. “It’s all in the past.” There is no more racism; there is only white people talking about their innocence, forever.
After each interview, there is a little statistic. In Chaney’s case, that statistic is that 51% of Americans think slavery is not responsible for black people having lower incomes today. The framing is particularly unhelpful; slavery happened a really long time ago, but as Ta-Nehisi Coates documents in “The Case for Reparations,” racism, and using racist laws to expropriate the wealth of black people, didn’t stop in 1865, or 1975, or with the racist subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. Reparations isn’t just about slavery; it’s about what happened in the 150 odd years since slavery, all the way up to yesterday.
“Whiteness Project aims to inspire reflection and foster discussions that ultimately lead to improved communication around issues of race and identity,” the statement of purpose on the website says. That’s a laudable goal. But framing reparations solely as an issue of slavery doesn’t improve communication around race. Instead, it makes communication around race worse. Asking white people to talk about race is useful in highlighting the importance of and power of whiteness—but it also spreads a lot of disinformation. White people, it turns out, are not all that great at talking about race, both because they lack practice, and because part of white identity is ignorance. As a result, the Whiteness Project includes a lot of white people spouting nonsense. Correcting that, or pushing the conversation to a productive place, requires more than a few statistics, especially when, on occasion, the statistics themselves are misleading.
It’s important to highlight whiteness, and to force white people to realize that white identity exists, even when (or especially when) they don’t want to think about it. As Lily Workneh says at Huffington Post, the insights here
included both unsettling and enlightening reflections” But white people becoming more self-conscious about whiteness isn’t, in itself, an assurance of progress: white supremacists and Neo-Nazis are very self-conscious about whiteness. If there’s not an explicit, and forceful, anti-racist agenda, a discussion about race can just end up rehashing prejudices. The Whiteness Project raises important issues. But ultimately, without greater critical context and engagement, racism is unlikely to be defeated, or even meaningfully addressed, by a bunch of white people talking,
I like the De La Soul reference in the conclusion. Great piece! I’m doing this art show around “White Feelinga” and the point is absolutely to point out how deep white narcissism can be. We (white people) can have privilege even when we actually acknowledge that privilege exists. Awareness is not Justice.
When I hear a middle-aged woman state, “I don’t think I’ve ever come across anything that’s made me aware of my race,” all I can think is (a.) She lived a very cloistered existence, or (b.) She’s a moron.
Growing up in Chicago during the 1960s and 1970s, I was aware of my race early on. Every neighborhood I lived in was multi-cultural and/or multi-racial. As an older teen, I was one of the few white person in my neighborhood. And at times, I had to run for my life because of my race.
The fact is, I think Americans obsess about race to a degree I did not see during 10+ years of living and/or traveling overseas. And frankly, over the past 40 years or so, the finger-pointing and hand-wringing has done nothing to improve life for those living in Chicago’s minority communities. Like the myriad of useless laws passed in an attempt by progressives to “do something,” such guilt-driven soul-searching is nothing more than a façade that makes them think they are doing something to address a problem, when in reality, it will not.
It’s why two of my old neighborhoods have been shitty for 40+ years, an will remain shitty until those in power stop trying to tackle problems using unproven intellectual ideology.
Face it, if those in power haven’t figured out how to solve ANY of a neighborhood’s problems after four decades, either they are stupid, their methodology and doctrine is flawed, or they simply do not care.
Well, what are the solutions to the problems of poor inner-city neighborhoods, Russ?
I’d start with housing assistance; housing precarity is a massive problem for poor neighborhoods. Housing assistance could also start reducing income segregation, if it gave people an opportunity to move into different neighborhoods. The recent book Evicted has good recommendations for how to do this.
Disconnecting school funding from property taxes might be a good second step.
I mean, the big answer is universal income. Everybody gets paid an above poverty wage by the government, everyone can start living wherever they want, segregation ends, all is well. That’s not even on the table though, alas…
I’d vote for you, Noah. Even though you thought that a race-baiter like Trump could never win the nomination.
But as far as blaming American apartheid on “progressive” policies– I can barely manage a snort.
I didn’t realize how broken the GOP was! Total miscalculation; many mea culpa’s.
I’d suggest Russ read Badldwin’s Equal in Paris for a discussion of why Americans might not be tuned into racial issues overseas…but of course horses, water, etc.
Jack: gentrification?
Noah: you, sir, are a dangerous communist! A bit like the pope, I’d say…
What I would do in Chicago if I were running the show is crush the gangs — especially from an economic standpoint. The gangs, and their illicit trade, is the root of all evil in Chicago.
When I was living in the neighborhood of Austin in the 1970s, the area I lived in initially had no gangs. When they moved in, businesses started to flee (taking jobs with them), fences and bars went up around homes and the businesses that were left, and every decent family hunkered down into a bunker mentality. As time passed, those who could afford to move moved away, and more businesses — including grocery stores — left the area. Gangs started a vicious cycle that was a cancer on the neighborhood.
In addition to crushing the gangs, I’d also declare war on all popular culture venues who glorify drug use or laughed it off. The fact is, every single person who uses illegal drugs has blood on their hands. It’s no benign laughing matter, as films like “Ted” and countless others make it.
Frankly, I don’t have a dog in the fight regarding the legalization of various illegal recreational drugs, What I am for is crushing the gangs, and if legalization is part of the solution, and the people want it, so be it. But trying to advocate legalization vicariously through comedic and/or “normal” depictions in film or other popular culture does nothing to save the lives of gang members regularly killing each other over drug-related turf wars.
Crush the gangs, and conflicts will abate. A safer neighborhood will bring back businesses, jobs, opportunities and hope.
@Maheras
“What I would do in Chicago if I were running the show is crush the gangs — especially from an economic standpoint.”
Right. Because if there is one thing in all of America for which there exists no political will, it’s tough-on-crime policy. Amazing nobody tried this before…
“The gangs, and their illicit trade, is the root of all evil in Chicago.”
Well…no. Gang structures are a survival mechanism that arises in response to intense poverty. The gangs are the root of nothing, they are actually a pretty superficial symptom.
“Gangs started a vicious cycle that was a cancer on the neighborhood.”
Yeah, but somebody has to start the gang or make the calculated decision to “move in” to a neighborhood. If gangs are the root of all ills, bringing poverty into otherwise wealthy neighborhoods that they are trying to prey on, you’d expect tons of gang and police activity in Beverly Hills, neither of which happens. The cops and gangs are all in the poor neighborhoods, especially the ones that have, more or less, ALWAYS been poor.
“The fact is, every single person who uses illegal drugs has blood on their hands.”
What about people who use medical marijuana, or legal, prescription opiates that are chemically equivalent to heroin? Also, depicting “normal” drug use in pop culture isn’t about saving gang members, it’s about saving the lives of drug users suffering under stigma that pushes them further into poverty and addiction.
“Crush the gangs, and conflicts will abate”
Based on the arguments I have listed here, I think this causality is ass-backwards. Gangs are a response to poverty, replacing the legitimate economy with an illegitimate one to compensate for economic, social, and personal loss. You treat them like some irrational, predatory, independent entity which is all about destroying “good neighborhoods”. This is just really confused.
I kind of side with Russ on the drugs-in-pop-culture issue. Medical marijuana and legal, prescription opiates that are chemically equivalent to heroin are legal, so they’re not what he’s talking about. Plenty of movie and t.v. comedies depict pot smoking as the harmless pastime of lovable, middle-class underachievers/man-children, yet most pot comes to the U.S. through Mexican cartels that are arguably worse than ISIS. I guess the root problem is that it’s illegal to begin with, but that’s not really an excuse.
I’m inclined to split the difference between Russ and Peter. Sometimes you have to treat symptoms before you can get to the disease. That having been acknowledged, the language of “crushing” games suggests that force is the best medicine, which is dubious given the success of these efforts so far. All that having been said, I don’t know what the best medicine is, much less how to administer it. I suspect that it’d entail an unlikely alliance between gang members, community leaders, and the police, but how that’d happen I have no clue.
So, the solution to problems of poverty and lack of opportunity on Chicago’s southside is massive militarization of a police force which has repeatedly been shown to be incredibly racist, and which engages in regular torture and violence against residents.
Sure, that’ll make things much better. Why try to deal with poverty when you can just beat up bad guys? It’s like you’re a superhero fan or something, Russ.
Gangs are caused by economic and racial segregation. That’s why the best way to address them is through housing policy, not through policing.
Look. I was there when the neighborhood went to shit. I watched it happen on a day-to-day basis. I lived through it. It was frickin’ obvious. Yet the powers that be were totally oblivious to what was happening, because they lived elsewhere. And frankly, as long as the violence didn’t spill over into the “good” neighborhoods, they did not care. That was true in the 1970s, and it’s true 40 years later.
As far as Noah’s hyperbole about “massive militarization” goes, that is NOT what I said — although, historically, the National Guard has been deployed to areas in Chicago in the past — including my old neighborhood (Google it).
No, the key is to crush the gangs economically, since their primary purpose is to supply illegal drugs to the vulnerable poor and the spoiled rich. Al Capone was brought down on tax evasion charges. Find out where the gang money arteries are and squeeze or cut them off. City leaders have had 40 years to try something, but the fact is, I don’t think they really care, for the reason cited above (i.e., it’s not happening in my backyard). It’s been a constant cycle of lip service, finger-pointing, and arm-chair intellectualizing, while the body count keeps growing and growing.
Worst of all, eight years of a black Chicagoan in the White House did not improve the situation in Chicago one iota.
It’s a frickin’ disgrace.
Another thing I’d do if I were in change? I’d stomp out Machine politics forever. Once, a long time ago, one could argue it was good for the city, and that Chicago was a city that works. Those days are long gone. The city is dysfunctional, nearly bankrupt, and life for the 61 percent minority majority is bleaker than ever.
south side neighborhoods are economically devastated. Even if you could somehow cut off the entire drug trade, that would reduce violence, which would be huge…but there still wouldn’t be any jobs. People go into the drug trade because there aren’t any other economic opportunities available.
I agree folks don’t really care. Again, this is in part because segregation makes it easy to ignore entire areas of the city.
Magically win the drug war, magically end corruption… magical fantasies of toughness.
U! S! A! U! S! A!
Noah — I’ve heard that argument before — that the only job opportunities in the “bad” neighborhoods is dealing drugs. First of all, I’d argue that argument is HIGHLY condescending towards the minority community. Second, that statement was patently false in Chicago 40-45 years ago, when my neighborhood succumbed to the gang scourge. Manufacturing and service jobs were plentiful in Chicago during the late 1960s and early 1970s, and anyone who wanted to work could get a job. Between 1968 and 1972, for example, when my neighborhood began its demise, the unemployment rate hovered between 2-4 percent.
Bert — Your mocking attitude is exactly why nothing ever changes in minority communities. You think “your side” has all the answers, and they don’t. They are so clueless it’s sickening. As I said before, if a the policies of the ruling class have had zero effect on a problem in 40 years, either the policy is wrong, those in charge are stupid, or those in charge really do not care.
Chicago’s problems stems from all three.
@R. Maheras
“First of all, I’d argue that argument is HIGHLY condescending towards the minority community.”
“The minority community”? And secondly, the south side has this problem because its poor, not because its non-white. The problem would be similar, although not quite the same, in a very poor white community, like in West Virginia for example. Which is what Noah said when he wrote the very first sentence.
“You think “your side” has all the answers, and they don’t.”
You are accusing Bert of thinking he has all the answers when the only thing he did was mock YOU for thinking you have all the answers.
Finally, the strategy you outlined in one of your second comment, “crush the gangs”, is exactly the strategy that has been tried for decades. Even your, “from an economic standpoint” kicker is old, OLD news. Now you might think it just needs to be done more until it (magically) begins to work…or you might think doing more of the same and expecting wildly different results is insane. So, as a wise man once commented, “if a the policies of the ruling class have had zero effect on a problem in 40 years, either the policy is wrong, those in charge are stupid, or those in charge really do not care.” You’re the one who is agreeing with the ruling class here.
“I’d argue that argument is HIGHLY condescending towards the minority community.”
By that logic it would be condescending to point out that enslaved people weren’t able to get an education.
Bert’s mocking *you* Russ. Not minority communities, but you. They aren’t the same thing.
I’m skeptical that you have a good sense of how easy it was or was not for black people in the South Side of Chicago to get jobs in the late 1960s. I know you’re setting yourself up here as having unique knowledge because you were there, man. But you’ve made your particular prejudices pretty clear. If you have other evidence, that would help, but your say so on this issue isn’t worth all that much, I’m afraid.
Petar — Noah and I were not talking about West Virginia, we were talking about the west and south sides of Chicago, which ARE minority communities.
Bert mentions no strategy. He simply mocked someone who dared criticize the party in charge in Chicago — which is a tacit approval of their failed policies.
Chicago has never, to my knowledge, gone all-out to crush the gangs. Ever. The reason is simply: it would take a major influx of resources and a political will that simply is not there. Every step that has been taken in the past four decades has been measured and half-hearted, and only in response to SUBSTANTIAL external pressure. Anyone who’s lived on the south or west sides can attest to that.
How many times in the past four decades has a Chicago pol stood up at a press conference and said they were passing a new law to combat the violence in Chicago neighborhoods? Laws cost almost nothing, which is why creating them to allegedly address a problem is so popular amongst Chicago pols. Yet laws also have no real effect on the bad guys, because without enforcement, a law is useless. For example, in Chicago, there’s a 6 in 10 chance a murderer will not even be arrested, let alone convicted for a murder. Contrast that with the arrest rates in other parts of the US or abroad. And that’s for MURDER. It’s even lower for other crimes.
Armchair intellectuals… bah, humbug!
“Noah and I were not talking about West Virginia, we were talking about the west and south sides of Chicago, which ARE minority communities”
I was making an illustrative comparison that I thought was salient. I am perfectly aware what you were talking about, and I continue to think my point was salient.
“Bert mentions no strategy. He simply mocked someone who dared criticize the party in charge in Chicago — which is a tacit approval of their failed policies.”
He mocked someone who was parroting the failed policies of the party in charge of Chicago, and who was pretending it is some radical shift in policy and paradigm.
“Chicago has never, to my knowledge, gone all-out to crush the gangs.”
What would this mean? Would it mean taking money away from healthcare, housing programs, and the already failing school system? Because I can guarantee you, nothing can do more harm to the south side or any poor community of any color, anywhere, than defunding all of their social programs and institutions and giving that money to the police in a misguided attempt to “crush” gangs. Which brings me to…
“Yet laws also have no real effect on the bad guys…”
Uhhhhhh…where to even begin? Well, who exactly are, “the bad guys”? I guess your answer is gang members…but what if the only paid work somebody can find in an eviscerated community is selling drugs? What the hell are they supposed to do? I am highly suspicious of your narrative of the gangs, “moving in” to an otherwise good neighborhood. They are a social structure, not a storm front. And most importantly, you seem to think the modern American carceral state, massive local police surveillance, police militarization, enormous powers for law enforcement, etc, is NOT going “all out”. What the hell would be?!?
“Armchair intellectuals… bah, humbug!”
Are you fucking kidding me? You are commenting on a blog just like the rest of us, you’re not in the hot seat at a town hall meeting. Accusing Bert, and the rest of us, of being “armchair intellectuals” is ridiculous, because you aren’t exactly pounding the pavement to solve the problem right now, either.
Petar — The reason Chicago has never solved the problem is because they don’t really understand the problem (like you) and they never thought it was important enough to expend the resources necessary to eliminate it — primarily, I’d argue, because it was not in their back yards.
Again, when there were no gangs in my neighborhood things were fine, but when the gangs expanded their turf in the 1970s, the neighborhood went to hell, and has never recovered. It’s as simple as that. And since I’d guess more than 80 percent of the murders in Chicago are gang-related (including collateral damage murders), to claim my call to crush the gangs is “misguided” is what is truly misguided.
I may not be “pounding the pavement” in the classic sense, but I certainly am doing so in the virtual sense. Hell, if I had stayed in my old neighborhood, I’d have been dead decades ago. And frankly, I hope I make those who have helped perpetuate this human disaster wince and piss and moan, because maybe… just maybe… they’ll eventually have an epiphany, throw out their failed game plans, and solve the problem.
Russ, good grief. Bert thinks Rahm Emanuel is a bigoted, incompetent blight, as I do. You’re the one here whose knee jerk partisanship is making conversation pointless.
Noah — Hey, I’ve been fed up with Chicago politics for more than 40 years. Yet the Machine has a far firmer grip on the city now than it did back in the 1980s, when Harold Washington was elected mayor and it appeared the Machine was collapsing in on itself.
Here we are 40 years later and nothing has changed. What especially frustrates me is that a sitting president, and a minority, who lived in Chicago, and allegedly did an unspecified amount of community service there, has had zero impact on the problems in Chicago’s minority communities.
Why is saying so “partisan?” I’m not saying Republicans are the answer, although I think it is impossible for them to have served the minority communities any worse over the past 40 years. How about a Dem coalition not linked to the Machine running the show? Or some independent faction?
Yet every election, the Dem Machine gets re-elected. It’s insanity.
@Maheras
You have certainly shown us exactly how well you understand the problems in South Side Chicago.
“…but when the gangs expanded their turf in the 1970s, the neighborhood went to hell, and has never recovered.”
You are seriously confused about the difference between correlation and causality in this instance.
“And frankly, I hope I make those who have helped perpetuate this human disaster wince and piss and moan, because maybe… just maybe… they’ll eventually have an epiphany, throw out their failed game plans, and solve the problem.”
Your niche-Internet-comics-blog-commentary indubitably has the gangs and the Machine quaking in their boots. You sir, are a true warrior for the people. Keep typing until the world changes, I say!
Russ, the Democrats win in Chicago because the GOP is a white identity party that can’t compete with a black electorate. That sucks…but it’s an effect not a cause of the problems in Chicago, imo.
Toni Preckwinkle, the cook county board president, is actually really good at her job, and is an independent, basically. She’d going some good things in Chicago (helped kick out Anita Alvarez, for one.)
Also, note that independent folks in Chicago are often focused on *limiting* police power. It’s folks like Rahm who resist oversight of police, and see the city through a law and order frame. So blaming the machine because it doesn’t pursue law and order policies with sufficient vim is very confused.
Petar — I actually understand things just fine. It’s intellectuals who have never lived in such an environment yet pretend they have all the answers who are clueless. Their policies fail year after year, decade after decade, and yet they point fingers in every direction except at themselves. I’m tired of the bullshit every election, and the lies, and the promises never kept. I’m tired of the hollow outrage, and the phony publicity stunts — like when the mayor temporarily moved into the notorious Cabrini Green housing projects to show “she cared,” yet she had an army of cops protecting her… cops who left the second she did.
And that’s the way it is. Everyone in the neighborhood knows that most of the time, the cops show up after everthing’s over, and all they can do is put the toe tag on the victims.
Noah — Like I said, I don’t care who is in power if they do their frickin’ job. The Dem Machine is not doing their job anymore. They need to be booted out and replaced with people who are smart problem-solvers, who really care, and are willing to throw out everything that does not work — even if it’s ingrained former party policy. Everything, and I mean everything, should be on the table.
The desire for a non politician technocrat who’s willing to break all the rules got us Trump. Yay for that.
The political process is frustrating; problems of entrenched racism and segregation are intractable. Chicago’s government is corrupt and awful. We agree on all those things.
Trump is obviously not the answer, but neither is Bernie. Yet the meteoric rise of both shows just how disenchanted the electorate on both sides is with entrenched pols who can’t get anything done.
One of the reasons I went independent in 1980 is because I saw how entrenched pols in Chicago took advantage of the electorate election after election. The way I see it, if pols knows year in and year out they’ll get a certain geographical area to always back a certain party, the voters in that area have lost all leverage against the pols. I think every pol should have a real fear of losing their job every election unless they do a good job. That ceased to be the case in Chicago decades ago. If you are the party’s chosen one, you are in, which means the actual vote is merely a formality.
That’s just plain wrong.
Most local incumbents are quite safe in most situations, across the country. Incumbents have a big advantage. That’s always been the case, and is not unique to Chicago.
Noah — C’mon. I’ve lived in plenty of other places, and I’ve never seen anything like the entrenched political monopoly that exists in Chicago. Find any other big city in the country where the mayor and all of the members of the city council are from one party. In Chicago it is not a case of incumbent candidates, it is a case of an incumbent political Machine. No other large city I know of could have had a pol who was no longer even a resident come in, get embraced by the local political Machine, and then handily win the mayoral election.