There's a lot of yelling about white privilege, whiteness and the obvious negative connotations of being white. A lot of it is folderol, a theme concocted by tired academics who need to gain the spotlight to make themselves seem relevant. Having once been in the near upper reaches of academia -- I was a graduate student in my dissolute youth -- I'm a little familiar with how academics gnash their teeth and rend their garments about otherwise meaningless topics. If only convection and microwave ovens heated up as quickly as academics...it would be rather entertaining if it weren't so terrifying.
I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the calls that demand whites divest ourselves of our belongings because some whites in a bygone era acted badly to other races, namely blacks. I understand the iniquity of what happened, sort of. But I don't know how an entire race can be called upon to account for the actions of a segment of that race, especially when the race is as diverse as whites are. I mean, if British slavers benefitted from slavery, why should Romanians be forced to cough up their wealth? That hardly seems fair.
And just how far to we take the responsibility? I mean, obviously crimes like slavery, murder and rape demand recompense. But what of battery? What of adultery? What of torts, such as negligence? How about copyright infringement? What's more, how does one apportion damages?
What if, as happened, whites (the Irish) were enslaved by other whites (Brits) and forced to breed with African slaves? Does that entitle those of us of Irish heritage to share in the divestitures, or is it merely an offset because other Irishmen were slavers themselves?
The slippery slope is in plain view.
Yet, there's something else that's troubling to me about this debate. Why should whites be forced to apologize for the obvious contributions they made to humanity? I mean, even assuming that whites did horrible things to other races -- which they did -- do their accomplishments for the betterment of mankind count for naught? What about the struggles that whites shared with blacks to make all men equal? How are those factored into the equation? Moreover, if we assume the premise that all men are created equal, why didn't other races achieve the things the white race did? Blacks, Latinos and Asians all accomplished things, but whites accomplished so many things that lightened humanity's load, yet instead we're supposed to believe that but for slavery, blacks would have accomplished these things?
I have an imperfect memory when it comes to dates of things, but as a general argument, when exactly did the slavery begin that begets this grievance? Were whites unable to progress until they started enslaving Africans? Is that when progress took off? Or were whites doing things irrespective of slavery that Africans and Asians simply weren't doing? To be sure, there were things whites accomplished because slaves took on burdens that freed up whites to engage in other pursuits. But not every advance made by a white person is rooted in slavery. And ignoring slavery for a minute, what about the black and Asian races making similar gains on their own?
The notion that there exists such a thing as white privilege is poppycock. There is privilege, plain and simple. Although I come from a middle class background, there is no way I had a privileged life. And I can point to several people of color who have it far better than I do due to privilege alone. Where someone has outworked me, that's one thing. But where someone was born into the lap of luxury and happens to be a minority...how is that any different than white privilege, except for the race involved? There may be more white people of privilege, but to suggest that only whites have privilege is ludicrous.
One thing I always remember is that certain people complain about how they were kept down by the evil white man -- and they were -- there were whites who did not share that mentality that worked hard to upset that dynamic. And it's not just lower class whites who fought on behalf of minorities. Take the seminal Brown v. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court. Here's a picture of the SCOTUS justices who ruled unanimously in favor of blacks:
Is there anything noticeable about this photo? I mean, besides the fact that all nine justices are men and wearing robes? If whites were so horrible, how is it that nine men, who had the power to maintain the status quo, voted unanimously to end it?
And the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Was that Act passed by a Congress composed mostly of minorities? I think not.
Make no mistake: There are still problems that need to be corrected. I personally know whites who are rude about minorities. But there are plenty of whites who see no difference between the races and firmly believe in equal rights. The problem is that there is a group of people in control who, by virtue of their privileged status, want to remain in control. Allowing people of different backgrounds, whether it be racial, social or economic, would threaten their hold on power. And that, not race, is the true privilege that needs extirpation.
It's easy to hit a target that's made of one large substance. Unfortunately, society isn't and shouldn't be equal to target practice.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment