Cartoon: White Lies
| July 30th, 2007
This one took forever to draw, much longer than I expected even given the number of panels. That I kept on having to interrupt drawing so I could go to “work” definitely didn’t help.1
Probably I should color this cartoon, and maybe I will someday; but that would be at least another day’s work, and right now I can’t face that. :-P Anyhow, I think it looks good in black and white.2
I’m gonna put off posting this on ZNet for a day or two, since once a cartoon’s up on ZNet there’s no way for me to modify or correct it. So if you notice any misspellings please let me know.
- I was originally going to have all of last week off, but then the Unitarian Church’s wedding coordinator got sick so they asked me to substitute for her for a few weddings. Yes, that’s right, I’m a wedding coordinator for a living. (back)
- Although, as regular “Alas” readers know by now, I always like my cartoons for the first few days after I draw them; the horror and “oh my god, what was I on when I drew that?” will come later. (back)
July 30th, 2007 at 9:53 am
I love your faces in this one.
And the sentiment, of course.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Assuming that the sports fan in #7 is wearing “42″ because it was Jackie Robinson’s number, I’d re-examine what 1947 Brooklyn Dodgers’ uniforms looked like.
This comment was written by Rich B..Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Actually, it was a reference to Douglas Adams. I had no idea that Jackie Robinson’s number was 42. :-p
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Another good one Amp, and the facial expressions are priceless.
This comment was written by RenegadeEvolution.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:59 am
So I was at this party in college and a couple of nights later I met up with one of the fellas I had met there. I remembered that he was smart and funny, but I didn’t remember his name. “Yeah” I said, “You were the black guy at the party.”
This comment was written by whitekid.He said, “Oh yeah, you’re the Irish guy.”
My first thought was that I’m not Irish. My second thought stays with me for the rest of my life.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
A little baseball history, then:
Jackie Robinson wore #42 for the Brooklyn Dodgers for his entire integrated-baseball career (1947-1957).
In 1997 — the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson entering Major League baseball — his number was officially retired by every team (the only number to be retired by every team, instead of just the one he played for), allowing only players who currently wore the number (as a tribute to Jackie Robinson) to continue. All of the “grandfathered” #42s were Black (or Black/Hispanic.) As of today, Yankees pitcher Mariano Rivera is the only active player still wearing #42 (because he’s the only one still active who wore the number in 1997). Younger players often wear #24 (42 reversed) to honor Jackie Robinson now.
So, you might want to consider the “double meaning” and whether you want it. A sports jersey with #42 on it will certainly read (to a baseball fan at least) “My favorite baseball player is Jackie Robinson, the first black Major Leaguer.”) Maybe you want that for Racist #7, maybe not.
This comment was written by Rich B..Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
A sports jersey with #42 on it will certainly read (to a baseball fan at least) “My favorite baseball player is Jackie Robinson, the first black Major Leaguer.”)
A couple of things about this, Rich B. First, I am a huuuuuge baseball fan. However, I look at that panel and I see a football jersey. Secondly, there are many racists whose favorite baseball player is Jackie Robinson. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Jake, a white person liking a ‘safe’ black person would make it funnier. Sort of like the joke: all country clubs will integrate as soon as Colin Powel finds the time to join. Forget where I heard that first.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I hate white guilt
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Guilt is sort of pointless. I mean, why feel personally guilty about historical inequities I did not choose?
Ahhhh, but responsibility! There’s the meat of it. As someone with privilege in our system, it is my responsibility to work towards a more fair, less racist system.
There’s no point in self-flagellating while doing it, just do it.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
#5: ‘Conciously ‘ should be ‘consciously’.
:-)
I love what you’ve done with this, especially ‘Can I have my medal now?’
This comment was written by matttbastard.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Great cartoon. #5 drives me stark-raving insane!
This comment was written by Daisy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Aww… was there no room for “I’m not racist, I have many black friends (spotlight on random black person), but… “?
Great cartoon, though.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Throw in a panel randomizer, and you could get a 3×3 bingo card…
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Thank you so much for this post! I’m sure you (or someone) could do another 10 or 20 “top white lies” without any trouble at all.
I like the variety of backgrounds as well as the variety of clothing, hair color & styles, and age groups. And the expressions on their faces are priceless.
Thanks for the effort - it’s really good!
P.S. This isn’t a criticism - just an observation -I think the #42 shirt looks like a football jersey, too.
This comment was written by Eva.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
[…] This is awesome: […]
This comment was written by Loganotron » Racism.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
[…] has posted a wonderful one-page comic titled White Lies: A Top Ten List. I’ve included the illustration below, but he may be making some changes to it, so you should […]
This comment was written by Ally Work » White Lies: a cartoon.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Sylphhead: D’oh! You’re right, I should have included that. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that one.
Lis, good idea. :-P
Daisy, Matttbastard, Myca, and Ren, thank you. :-)
Eva, you’re right, it is a football jersey. I know I wanted some sort of sports-number shirt, and the first image I found online was a football jersey. (I didn’t have any symbolism in mind, I just wanted a diverse range of clothing, and a sports jersey didn’t seem too hard to draw).
I have no problem with the character wearing Jackie Robinson’s number, however. It fits in well with his dialog, actually.
(Updated to add: Spelling of “consciously” has been fixed. Thanks, Matttbastard!)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I’m especially fond of #4.
(And #3. And #8. But especially #4.)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I would just like to make it clear that this comic is meaningless. Amp has no idea what he’s talking about because he’s fat.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Whoa. Somebody having a bad night?
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Jake’s making fun of some of the responses I got to a cartoon I posted a couple of weeks ago. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Oh, good. Well, in that case I hope everybody’s having a good night.
::Wanders off…::
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 5:55 am
Wow. Good one. There’s so much going on. Every time I look at it, I pick up on another great detail.
This comment was written by Nan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 6:29 am
let me put in a vote for #9, which seems to be (once you include the very apt newspaper) the theme of the last year or two . . .
This comment was written by acm.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 6:34 am
HA! “Daily Opiate” in #9! I missed that.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 9:41 am
It’s so good I hate to say anything, but yes, “White guilt is stupid” and “You’re just trying to make me feel guilty!” could definitely be in the sequel.
Is it OK to link to this?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 9:41 am
What percentage of white people in this country would anyone here consider not to be racist?
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:01 am
I’d rephrase that as, “What percentage of _people_ in this country would anyone here consider not to be racist?”
My answer would be, 0%.
I think it is impossible to not think, at least a little bit, in terms of “them” vs “us”, and race is one (but only one) of the differentiators. I’d like to think the key to avoiding racist acts and racial bias is to become aware of it in oneself, and consciously work to ignore it. Maybe this is easy for some people, but for me it requires vigilance.
It would be a _whole_ lot easier to just decide to myself that I don’t have any prejudices against others. But self-honesty prohibits that.
This comment was written by Karen.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Of course it’s okay to link, Mythago! (I love it when people link to cartoons.)
I’m not sure that “white guilt is stupid” would fit in, for me, because I agree that white guilt is stupid. (I agree with what Myca wrote in comment #10.)
But I feel like slapping myself for forgetting “You just want me to feel guilty!”
Okay, so we have at least two more: “You just want me to feel guilty!” and “Let me first point out that I have black friends, so that what I’m about to say, which you’d normally find very racist, isn’t racist at all.” (My rephrasing of Sylphead’s suggestion).
Once we have an addition eight ones I missed, I can draw a sequel. :-D
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:07 am
DBB, I have no idea — I guess I’d have to see a decent representative-sample survey of racial attitudes of white americans, designed to catch subtle as well as overt racism, to be able to address that question.
My guess is that it’s pretty high. But I don’t have an exact figure.
But that’s just my opinion. I would encourage you, however, to avoid the “anyone here” formulation, which (perhaps unintentionally) implies that you think everyone here must share the same opinions on these matters. In fact, we are individuals, and our opinions vary.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:17 am
alright, I’ll bite, even if trolling troll is troll.
What percentage of white people in this country would anyone here consider not to be racist?
The overwhelming majority of people are not consciously racist. but there are multiple layers of racism.
There’s the “Send the darkies back to africa” layer, which has more than you would probably guess right off, but still very very few.
there’s the layer of deliberate acts, that are possibly, maybe probably but not necessarily consciously racist. This is the source of illegal traffic stops, clerks following people in stores, and educational double standards. much more common. utterly mundane, even. It’s banal.
Then there’s the layer of simply operating without interaction. Suburban flight is racist, but the overwhelming majority of participants would never think of it in terms of race.
Then there’s one last kind of racism, which is basically “not noticing that the cops never pull you over for speeding, or the teacher gives you a better grade than the black kids, etc etc.”
point is: Racists are people who actively believe in a philosophy of racial supremacy. Racism, on the other hand, is a systemic problem that can manifest in people who are perfectly nice people, and who actually genuinely believe in racial equality.
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:33 am
Amp - I phrased it that way to invite a response from anyone reading it, as opposed to implying that everyone here would agree to an answer. Sorry I did not make that clearer.
Karpad - so you think there are degrees of racism, but that really doesn’t answer my question. How many whites fit none of your definitions of racism? Obviously, I’m not asking for an exact number, but one could take a ball park guess. Perhaps you could start by saying if you know any whites who are not racist.
I suppose it would also be interesting to see what percentage of the entire country is racist, broken down by race, to see if whites are more or less racist than other races. And it would be interesting to do a country by country comparison as well.
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:35 am
I like how the first and last panel ties it together, personally. And I think I’ve stumbled upon another possible panel idea to add but I’m not sure how to articulate it. I’ll tentatively call it the ‘I went through that, too’ deal.
This comment was written by arrogantworm.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:43 am
DBB, why do you think that would be interesting? This seems to me to be veering close to the fallacy I refer to in #6 of the cartoon. Racism in whites matters much more, because whites (as a class, not as individuals) have far more ability to limit what other folks can do with their lives.
I do think that prejudice among non-whites matters (to avoid the usual argument about what the word “racism” means, I’m switching to “prejudice”). And keep in mind that “prejudice among non-whites” isn’t the same as so-called “reverse prejudice”; it’s quite possible for non-whites to have internalized prejudice against themselves, for instance, or to be prejudiced against other non-white groups.
However, I’m extremely leery of the frequent habit of people saying “what about non-white racism?” during a discussion of white racism; in this context, it feels like a diversion. Yes, that might be a worthwhile topic of discussion, in the right context (and if we could agree on what the word “racism” means). No, it’s not a reasonable thing to get brought up EVERY SINGLE TIME white racism is the subject (and believe me, someone does bring it up virtually every time).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:44 am
Thanks, Arrogantworm! It’s nice that people notice stuff like that. :-)
I’m not getting your panel suggestion, but if you get a brainstorm about articulating it come back and let me know. :)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:49 am
DBB, do you mean ‘new definition’ racism or ‘old definition’ racism?
the ‘old’ definition is what a lot of kids were taught in school in, say, the 60s-90s. It’s basically ‘prejudice put into practice’, i.e. treating someone differently because of race.
the ‘new’ definition adds on, among other things, a requirement that the racist be of the dominant class or dominant majority. This essentially limits racism to whites, at least in the U.S.
the ‘new’ definition also includes, in many uses, other concepts:
1) focus on results, not process (see here for why this is quite relevant.)
2) linking of privilege to racism; i.e. the concept that having privilege that results from racism in general is inherently racist. this is pretty much like original sin for whites, and is quite similar to other privilege-to-ism discussions. (this isn’t limited to racism and whiteness by any means. If you’ve been following the cartoon threads, you’ll see examples of radfems talking about what amounts to original sin for males. And of course we all know about the fundie original sin for females, a.k.a. Genesis.)
Anyway, under either definition most whites are probably racist. But with the old definition you pretty much started at 0% and counted up. With the new definition you pretty much start at 100% and count down. So under the new definition I’d say ‘almost all’ whites are racist.
Amp, I like the cartoon drawings. Like many political cartoons I think that it’s difficult to put complex arguments into a short cartoon. It’s sort of like a political sound bite or an ad outside a church: it may make your audience nod its head, but it’s not conveying as much.
Take #4. Are some people who are anti-illegal-immigration that way because they’re racist? Yup.
But is it unfair to start throwing accusations of racism at all people opposed to illegal immigration, as many pro-illegal-immigration folks do? Yup. Not really sure how that one’s a lie, white or otherwise.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:58 am
I said nothing about the relative importance of racism for a given race, I just thought it would be interesting to see the statistics. But you are right, that is a diversion from the question at hand.
I truly want to know what others think the overal prevalence of white racism is today. Would it be easier to answer if it were a multiple choice question as to how many whites were not racist? Pick a number, 0 to 100, in increments of 10, add a %, and that’s the guess? It might also be interesting to break it down by geography. For instance, I suspect that number is a lot closer to 100 in the extraordinarily liberal city I grew up in than it would be in, say, some small rural town in Mississippi.
One thing I have to ask, looking back at karpad wrote - not noticing you are not getting pulled over makes one a racist? That seems a rather low threshold. More like not noticing that other people are being racist. It seems a bit of a stretch, though, to turn someone’s density at not noticing other people being racist as being racist. Dense or clueless, sure, but not racist. Especially in a school setting. From my own experience, I know that when you are a kid, usually you are too busy worrying about how everyone thinks about you to worry too much about anyone else (or even to notice that everyone else has the same worries, even the people who don’t seem to worry about anything).
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Sailorman - just missed your post. I have seen that new definition of racism, though it is still somewhat unclear to me exactly how it is supposed to work.
For instance, it almost sounds like it just defines 100% of whites as racist and 0% of everybody else as racist, and that is that. But that seems to be a somewhat useless definition then - more of a tautology. If you are white, you are racist, end of discussion, don’t bother changing your behavior, because no matter what you do you are still white so you’re still a racist.
But if it is not 100% (or not 0% according to the way I phrased the question), then what makes those X% of whites not racist? Wouldn’t that be a worthwhile thing to explore - so as to increase X so it approaches 100 (as in 100% not racist)?
And sorry for the drift - I wonder what panel you could add to the cartoon if Barrack Obama is elected president, or how that changes the concept for those who define racism as only possible for those in power. (Given how Bush has defined the president now as having ultimate power over all of us poor peons).
And getting back to the cartoon - do you think this cartoon will help increase the numbers of non-racist whites through self-reflection?
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
oops, link: http://moderatelyinsane.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-equality-is-not-your-equality.html
DBB: Try here
This comment was written by Sailorman.http://allywork.solidaritydesign.net/
or here
http://www.rachelstavern.com/
as a starting point; I won’t bother pointing out more, as you’ll easily find hundreds off those sites’ blog links. Those two sites are relatively tolerant of 101 questions; the first one even has a 101 section. I’m not sure if there’s a race equivalent to the feminism 101 blog.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Yeah, the facial expressions in this and the “easy mistake” one are great.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
[…] Or one of the many reasons why Apersand rocks Leave a Comment […]
This comment was written by Hungry Tumblin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
the ‘new’ definition adds on, among other things, a requirement that the racist be of the dominant class or dominant majority. This essentially limits racism to whites, at least in the U.S.
Funny, I seem to remember a lot of the “new” discussion of racism going beyond black vs. white–for example, about internalized racism (preference for lighter skin) among blacks, racism between African-Americans and Asians in urban areas, and so on.
But, again, diverting the issue of the major issue–white racism–by concern-trolling is…well, a diversion. The same “but you can’t say that or they’ll all give up” arguments get made in feminist threads about feminism. Dunno about DBB, but I’m more interested in talking about Amp’s cartoon than worrying about percentages of “racist” people, or whether they will feel bad having stupid things they say pointed out.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
[…] Bravo, Amp. […]
This comment was written by Feminism Without Clothes » Blog Archive » Racial Profiling: It’s Not Just for Blacks Anymore!.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I think when comparing racism in a white v. non-white, it’s not only essential to look at it from the white->non-white angle, but from the non-white->white angle. It is also possible for minority groups to hold a bais against the majority group that normalitively acts to limit their own abilities.
This comment was written by Bryan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
mythago, I was just trying to answer the question and then steer dgg to other blogs. I tried to make it short (thus limited…) Why did you think that answer was concern trolling? (or were you not talking about that?)
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
The art of the cartoon looks good but I am not sure I understand the point of it.
Myca:
and
DBB:
Ya I thought that was a little odd too. I smacks of: ” If your not a cop or in a neighborhood watch program then you are part of the criminality”
Sailorman:
Though I think this new definition is dubious (or rather the attempt to redefine it) if one accepts the idea that there is such a thing as “white privilege” then using similar criteria one might have to accept the existence of:
“tall privilege”
“good looking privilege”
“smart privilege”
“thin/athletic privilege”
“extrovert privilege”
“good posture privilege”
“healthy/non-cripple privilege”
“full head of hair privilege” (Possibly good-looking Sub-privilege)
“well spoken privilege”
etc… there might even be a “snappy dresser privilege”
So how do we stack privileges? Tall athletic handsome snappily dressed black male vs. short fat ugly bad dressing white male: who has more privilege? Jessie Jackson or his bald freckled janitor with a bad lisp? In a world so much more complex than simply black & white maybe we need a point system so sort it all out?
Anyway, IMHO We have to stop this archaic tribal/clan mentality and start seeing people as individuals.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
ok, I am *really* sorry about my earlier post. Stupid definition. Will some mod please delete it? I’ve gotta learn not to feed trolls. My bad.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
LarryFromExile, I think Amp covered that all in panel #6.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Sailor,
It’s okay. The trolls are here; the moderators can step in if they want a particular conversation topic avoided. In this case, it seems to me (though Amp could correct me) that he’s okay with a discussion of why his cartoon is valid.
FWIW, though I’m not mythago, I read her as saying DBB was being a concern troll — not you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Amp, I just thought of a suggestion for your sequel:
“We have to stop this archaic tribal/clan mentality and start seeing people as individuals.”
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
My other suggestion was going to be: “Actually, the black slaves were kidnapped by other black tribes in Africa, the white slave traders just bought them.”
To be fair, I have not heard that one for a couple of decades, but then again a couple of decades is how long ago I was in the South. I do not know if it still pops up there.
The best response I have heard to that point btw was from Thomas Paine, who claimed that the black African farmers were living in peace until Europeans started paying them to make war on each other to take each other as slaves. That was probably a bit of an exageration, but to the extent the issue matters at all, which admittedly is a function approaching zero, it nicely shows where the responsibility lay in the economics of slavery.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Amp, you forgot “I have black friends!!!11eleventyone”
^.^
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/
This comment was written by Drakyn.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Regarding how many whites are not racist, I think what might be easier to track (and more interesting) is the percentage of whites who are consciously anti-racist (I do believe whites, whether we want to admit it or not, are all racist).
Amp - I think the “But I’ve been through that, too” idea might come from someone who is white, but has experienced classism, sexism, religious bigotry, ablism, agism, etc, and is trying to squirm out of being responsible for their racism.
To be aware of the possibility of being stopped (driving, walking, standing still, or most egregiously questioned for NO REASON in the privacy one’s own home) is quite an everyday reality for way too many people of color.
It’s a specific kind of signifier of racism that people of color routinely get stopped by police in this way. If white people weren’t so afraid of people of color rising up and retaliating for all the harm we’ve done over the past 500 (or so) years, this type of policing wouldn’t exist. So being unaware of it is white priviledge, which is a result of institutional racism. The only way to combat it is to admit one experiences white priviledge (benefits from racism) and wants to be consciously anti-racist.
This comment was written by Eva.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 6:09 pm
OMG! This is terrific. Do you have a larger, hi-rest, print-ready version? and if so, can I buy a copy? I’m thinking that this would be perfect if was framed and hanging on my office wall! :-)
This comment was written by Eric Stoller.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 6:35 pm
mythago
I don’t see how “To be fair we should be talking about racism against whites too” covered it at all since I haven’t remotely mentioned any such thing.
decnavda
Do you mean to say that it is a good thing to see people as mainly members of tribe/clan rather than as individuals or that its not archaic?
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 7:11 pm
There’s another one, Amp–”Can’t we just all see people as individuals?”
Larry, you admit you missed the point of the cartoon. It’s not about seeing past differences, which is a Good Thing. It’s about recognizing that people do have privilege and disadvantage, and that people with privilege may deny, lie about or otherwise refuse to acknowledge their privilege, either because it’s uncomfortable to do so or because they don’t like the implications of giving up that privilege.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
for Larry and DBB, you missed the point:
First, DBB, I DID answer your question. You asked “how many whites are racist?” the answer is “not many, based on little to none scientific evidence.”
being racist, and suffering from racism are not the same thing.
a white person who drives 10 miles over the speed limit and never gets pulled over who has any awareness of racial profiling (like knowing the phrase is enough) who doesn’t reflect on that privilege is benefiting from, and exhibiting racism.
that entire category is “ignoring your own privilege,” which is racism.
you’re still treating racism like it’s inherently conscious and evil. it CAN be. it’s a behavior pattern, to be sure, but if often develops unconsciously. accusations of racism are NOT invective. They’re statements of perception of your behavior. “You’re racist” for the most part, and certainly within the context I’m talking about, is no more an ad hominem than “You’re mispronouncing (word X).” The proper response is to consider why the accusation was made, and amend behavior as necessary.
but again, Trolling troll is troll.
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t stack privileges, there’s really no order to it that I can find. Privilege depends on what qualities are valued, but the privilege a single person receives for not being something depends on the decisions of others to let you have that privilege, your own decision to use that privilege, time and place. Also, the term is able-bodied, not healthy/non-cripple.
This comment was written by arrogantworm.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I realize it says how to edit my comment, Amp, but I can’t figure it out, it isn’t letting me click anything.
I forgot to add that I was talking about overt use of privilege, not subtle use, where it’s ingrained and no thought is given to it. Also, Larry, I can’t tell if your clueless or trolling, so I’ll not respond anymore.
Eva,
Close enough for gov’mint work.
This comment was written by arrogantworm.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 7:48 pm
[…] And you know that Ampersand could have filled up multiple comics just like it. […]
This comment was written by mythago performs a blog dance for your amusement - White Lies.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I don’t like “sin-based” logic, incl. original-sin-based logic, as a framework for talking about privilege and responsibility, because it leads people down the road of thinking “well I must give up my privilege” (which isn’t really possible and leads to things like white college kids trying to imitate minority groups in search of ‘authenticity’) and not down the road of “how can I increase the radius of this privilege to include people it’s not currently including?” I really, really need to make the post about this. Maybe I can use wi-fi for an analogy or something.
This comment was written by A.J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
By using it deliberately, I don’t mean it’s able to be given up. I mean that if someone is in a specific situation and sees a chance to use, say, someone’s racism for the benefit of themselves, and they don’t it doesn’t cancel out that they can, if they want to.
This comment was written by arrogantworm.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I think A.J. makes a good analogy re: wi-fi, though I’m not quite sure how to phrase my agreement. I’m somehow thinking of an article I read a while back about a Brazilian tribe that has one computer on one island, hooked up to wi-fi, simply so that they can receive news of incoming storms & report local poachers.
Now that I’ve moved back to the midwest (as opposed to the ultra-white Pacific NW - no offense meant towards its residents!), I’ve noticed a great deal of dirty looks directed towards “that white lady” walking down the street. [I also get a little bit of ye olde “Don’t walk around like you own the place,” fwiw, and it doesn’t matter how I walk.]
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what I wear or how I speak: I’m white, and I can’t help but be white. It’s neither my fault nor anyone else’s that I was born into this skin color, but it’s still my responsibility (as a white folk) to “pay it forward,” suck it up, and just frickin’ deal with it. Which is kind of why I love this comic, and why I find the comments here so interesting.
(Chances are none of that made sense. Sorry ’bout that, if that’s the case.)
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Mythago
No, you’re right. As I have said I don’t get it. A couple of examples relating to the cartoon and what I said about privilege.
Take #10 in the cartoon for instance: Lets stipulate just for the purpose of the discussion that we live in racist society. Lets also say that those two people in #10 immigrated from, say, Finland 20 years ago. Using the spirit of the text in the cartoon: what exactly does racism and/or the racist society have to do with them? Are they assumed to have some role simply because of their skin color? Or is it simply my earlier example of “if your not a cop or in the neighborhood watch your part of the criminality”?
Next lets assume there is a guy with “tall privilege”. (In fact I have read somewhere that tall people earn more, live longer and healthier lives than short people) Exactly what things should he do to not benefit from his privilege in our heightist society? Should he reject occasional pay raises? Stoop when he goes into a job interview? What should he do?
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Yes, but isn’t being white under subtle instead of overt, or am I classifying into a corner?
This comment was written by arrogantworm.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 12:04 am
I’m not sure what you mean, arrogantworm.
This comment was written by defenestrated.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 1:55 am
Next lets assume there is a guy with “tall privilege”. (In fact I have read somewhere that tall people earn more, live longer and healthier lives than short people) Exactly what things should he do to not benefit from his privilege in our heightist society? Should he reject occasional pay raises? Stoop when he goes into a job interview? What should he do?
You don’t seem to get how the privilege thing works. There isn’t a magic button for making everything better. It’s a statement of things as they are.
And you fake analogues to white privilege don’t hold up. A tall man has the advantage of height to reach the stuff on the top shelf. He is aware that the reason he can reach is that he’s taller. He doesn’t think “Everyone’s the same height, I just wanted that cereal more and was willing to work harder to get it.”
White privilege means, no matter how rough things have been for you, no matter how hard you worked, there was that difference where you didn’t have to overcome being black, or latino, or whatever in addition to being born in poverty, dyslexia, whatever other hurdles you crossed. A poor white guy who’s left handed, short, and suffers from cardiac arrhythmia as it rough. but a poor black guy (or gay guy, or immigrant) who is left handed, short, and suffers from arrhythmia has it worse.
But I’m done with this, because you’ve demonstrated you have no interest in arguing in good faith.
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 5:13 am
Amp, just thought you’d like to know (if you’re not already aware of it) that this is being used as a rather effective Bingo card in a few discussions on Livejournal – specifically, there’s a big conversation going on about unintentional racism in one of the Harry Potter fandom communities, and your cartoon has been used to illustrate a few points. (I think it was posted on Debunking White by someone who got it from Racewire, and spread from there.)
This comment was written by mazaru.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 6:20 am
Karpad - I’d kindly ask you to follow the moderation policy here and not attack me personally (i.e. your trolling troll comment). It does not foster communication.
I don’t wish to derail this further, this being mostly a thread about a cartoon, though I suppose anything related to white racism is related to the cartoon - that is what it is about, after all. I do have more I’d like to ask and say, but I may just post on my own blog about that, unless I just can’t resist the temptationt to ask more questions here. I could not help but think about various issues related tot he discussion here last night and several things occurred to me that are flaws in the way racism is redefined by some. But in the interests of interblogy harmony, I’ll just leave that for my blog.
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 6:26 am
No, you’re right. As I have said I don’t get it.
What don’t you get, since it’s been explained at length? The cartoon is about people with privilege denying they have it. You seem to be doing your best to imitate the people in the cartoon.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 6:42 am
Coming in way, way late to this discussion, I think that it would be interesting to see a similar cartoon on gender, with lines like “How come no one talks about men who are beaten up by their wives?” and “Don’t people know that judges discriminate against men in custody cases?”
Of course, you may have already drawn such a cartoon and I just don’t know about it.
This comment was written by Andrew R..Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 10:51 am
Actually, as much as I despise the use of scare quotes when discussing privilege, I think Larry’s analogy to height privilege was reasonably accurate in spirit, if not in scale. Tall people earn more and tend to be preferred by romantic partners, among other benefits. However, the point behind his comparison wasn’t so much to compare racism to heightism as it was to ask the question, “So someone benefits from privilege. What are they supposed to do about it?” It’s a question I’ve heard from a lot of my male friends when I discuss male privilege with them. Of course, the answer is along the lines of what Karpad wrote in #68, but to be honest, getting people seems even harder than getting them to acknowlege their own privilege.
This comment was written by Speck.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 11:22 am
I don’t think he’s done a cartoon like this on gender that I can recall, but I know Amp did a very good (and oft revised) list of male privilege items a while back, and that could probably be turned into a cartoon similar to this one.
Were I not such a lazy ass, I would even find and provide a link to the list.
;-)
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Okay, my lasy-ass-ness has reached a temporary end!
The original Male Privilege Checklist is here, along with 400 or so comments.
The updated Male Privilege Checklist, filtered down from about 3 years of discussion is here.
Done. Let the laziness continue.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
“So someone benefits from privilege. What are they supposed to do about it?” It’s a question I’ve heard from a lot of my male friends when I discuss male privilege with them
If what they’re really saying is “Unless you can give me a checklist that I am unable to pick apart, I’ll go on my merry, privileged way” — and sometimes they are — turn it around. “What do YOU think you can do to end this unfairness?”
Who knows, they may brainstorm some good ideas. And perhaps they might clue in that being able to sit on your ass and say “I’ll fix it if you tell me what to do, but only then” it itself something you get as a result of privilege.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
But what would you call it? If the cartoon about race privilege is called “White Lies” (Gotta give it up for the title!), maybe Amp could do a cartoon about tall people privilege called “Height Lies.” But whadaya label the cartoon regarding male privilege?
“Man Is The Mismeasure of All Things”?
This comment was written by nobody.really.“The Error Sex”?
“Offender Gender”?
“Denial on Trial”?
“The Ignore Corps”?
“Member Privileges”?
“Sticking Your Head In”? (Referring to ostriches!)
…dunno….
Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“Actually, as much as I despise the use of scare quotes when discussing privilege, I think Larry’s analogy to height privilege was reasonably accurate in spirit, if not in scale. Tall people earn more and tend to be preferred by romantic partners, among other benefits. However, the point behind his comparison wasn’t so much to compare racism to heightism as it was to ask the question, “So someone benefits from privilege. What are they supposed to do about it?” It’s a question I’ve heard from a lot of my male friends when I discuss male privilege with them. Of course, the answer is along the lines of what Karpad wrote in #68, but to be honest, getting people seems even harder than getting them to acknowlege their own privilege.”
I was thinking the same thing. But I think reversing the question, as mythago suggested, is a good all purpose response, whether they’re the ‘good’ sort or the ‘bad’.
Most white people and most men truly understand that racism and sexism are morally wrong - they* just may have trouble taking that away from the abstract, especially as it pertains to their own lives. They wouldn’t be able to counter the “what do YOU think you can do about it?” reversal with, say, “dammit, that’s not MY JOB!” without at least hearing themselves talk. That would make them uncomfortable with themselves, and that’s better than nothing.
*Actually, speaking as a non-white man, I am dumbfounded as to which pronoun I should use here. Yes, yes, har-dee-har-har.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Mythago
Actually in my post #65 I gave an example of one the reasons I didn’t get the cartoon where I referenced the #10 (pane? panel? section? whatever you would the numerical divisions). You didn’t respond with any comments or attempt to answer any questions. Maybe there is some uncertainty principle at work here with regards to analyzing the cartoon. Or it could be that you aren’t supposed to really think about what it is actually saying or implying.
Mythago
and
sylphhead
Well I can’t expect Mr. Tall to stoop during job interviews, sales meetings, etc. It would also be unreasonable to expect him to refuse every fourth raise, or to take vows of celibacy in order to remove himself from the dating pool, etc. My answer would be: “I don’t know.” So now where are we? You have no answers and I have no answers. With no reasonable suggestions forthcoming on what actions Mr. Tall can do to both fight heightism generally and also to not take advantage of his privilege perhaps he bears no responsibility for heightism. Since there is no responsibility without authority it seems that Mr. Tall can now simply acknowledge his privilege, gain absolution, and get on with the rest of his life never having to worry about it again.
This comment was written by LarryFromExile.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
LarryfromExile - Regarding #10 panel.
This one’s been dogging me for a long time. I’m a light skinned (aka white) 2nd generation Jewish American. I used to think this way. Seriously. It was like some kind of racist mental arithmetic - since I’m Jewish, and my family moved here after the Civil War, and I was born in the ’60’s, I’m not responsible for racism.
Well, I may not be responsible for institutional racism that was created before I was born, but I’m certainly responsible for white priviledge (the invisible leg-up I will always have). I’m also responsible for dismantling institutional racism wherever I find it, in whatever way I can. Maybe that means intervening when I see a cop randomly questioning a person of color (or reporting it to higher ups). Maybe that means not letting racist comments go unchallenged, because it’s the right thing to do - not because there’s a person of color nearby I’m trying to impress or because “some of my best friends are people of color”.
Is this making any sense, Larry? If a tall person sees a short person reaching for the top shelf, asking if holding the step ladder for the short person so they can reach the Cheerios box might be the right thing to do. Or helping build shelves so more people can reach the cereal when they’re hungry. If tall people feel inconvenienced by stooping in doorways, that could be an opportunity to reflect on the inconvenience short people feel when they can’t reach the top (or only) shelf.
This comment was written by Eva.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:56 am
Eva - I find it interesting that you frame the tall person as seeing short doorways as times to reflect on the inconvenience short people feel with tall shelves without noting that you could just as easily reverse it, and say that short people who are inconvenienced by tall shelves should use as an opportunity to relfect on the invoncenience tall people feel by stooping in doorways. (Or in small, cramped cars, etc.)
In other words, for every tall shelf or poorly designed movie theater (without enough slope so short people have trouble seeing), there’s a cramped doorway or car - in some situations it pays to be tall, in others, it pays to be short, and so it really depends on context which is advantageous and which is disadvantageous. This is something that I think is too often left out of discussions of privilege - that what is privileged in one situation could be the opposite in another. That the unprivileged may be privileged, and vice versa, depending on the context. So it behooves one to find out the context and to find out one’s individual circumstances before one starts slapping around labels based on single characteristics, like race or gender.
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 am
DBB - This could be another “white lie” for Amp to illustrate: “In certain contexts as a white person I am at a disadvantage…”
Being at a disadvantage as a white person in some contexts does not negate white priviledge in general, and certainly does not negate being racist.
Being at a disadvantage as a tall person in some contexts does not negate tall priviledge in general.
In my previous post I was addressing institutional priviledges, which may be overshadowed by a particular context, but are always there, whether one wants to accept it, or not.
This comment was written by Eva.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
Well I can’t expect Mr. Tall to stoop during job interviews, sales meetings, etc.
Actually, I remember an interesting article about a tall salesman who did just that. His height was a disadvantage when he was a subordinate and trying to sell people on things, so he stooped.
As for what Mr. (or Ms.) Tall can do, there are hundreds of posts from hundreds of people on racism which cover just this. From educating oneself on the nuances, to speaking up against prejudice, to even just noting in unrelated conversation where a bias exists and trying to correct for it.
The most basic thing one can do, however, is not expect other people to lay out a powerpoint presentation on what one specifically should do, tooled for the individual asking the question, in order for one to show even the most basic interest.
This comment was written by Deoridhe.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 am
Eva - I am not talking about “white privilege in general” I’m talking when you are speaking to a specific individual and telling them they are privileged (or not). You should not confuse or conflate the general with the specific.
Just like pointing out that a white man, in a given situation, is less privileged than an African-American man in the same situation does not prove that white people in general are not privileged over African-Americans - the reverse is also true - white men being more privileged in general does NOT mean that a specific individual white man is privileged, any more than you could conclude that an individual is tall just because he’s a man just because, in general, men are tall. You need to look at individual circumstances before you call AN INDIVIDUAL privileged or not.
And as for the tall vs short, you are still making an assumption that tall is better based on nothing but an assertion. What if I say short is better. I can think of dozens of examples of “short privilege” to back it up. Who is right?
This comment was written by Disgusted Beyond Belief.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 am
DBB - Of course I’m going to treat individuals as individuals, when I meet them.
But until you introduced the topic of individuals the whole post was about white people, as a class, and their delusions, and cartoons about that. So, I’m gonna go back to addressing that issue, and I’m probably not going to respond to any more assertions about individuals, or for that matter the tall/short binary.
This comment was written by Eva.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
I read the cartoon (and this blog generally) to focus on undermining the Myth of Meritocracy: the idea that our circumstances depend entirely on our own efforts.
Are tall people more privileged than short people? Perhaps. Does this dynamic change under changing circumstances? Perhaps. We could argue about it.
But are tall people influenced by the fact they are tall AND THERE’S DAMN LITTLE THEY CAN DO ABOUT THEIR HEIGHT? Yes. Are short people influenced by the fact that they are short AND THERE’S DAMN LITTLE THEY CAN DO ABOUT THEIR HEIGHT? Yes; there’s not much to argue about here. We are each subject to physical and social dynamics beyond our powers to control. None of our successes is entirely a function of our efforts; none of our failures is, either. This ain’t no pure meritocracy.
I believe that individual white people are harmed by Affirmative Action programs in a manner that the individual white person’s efforts cannot control. And that would be a real tragedy in the context of a perfectly-functioning meritocracy. Outside the context of a perfectly-functioning meritocracy, however, Affirmative Action is merely one more uncontrollable dynamic – and hopefully an ameliorating dynamic – in a sea of uncontrollable dynamics.
The little White Lie of meritocracy focuses on certain dynamics of human interaction while ignoring others. Amp’s cartoon illustrates the hypocrisy of focusing on one aspect of race relations outside of the larger context.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Ha! Funny that I was just reading over a previous discussion entitled Privilege Is Driving a Smooth Road And Not Even Knowing It. Amp kicks off that discussion by remarking, “The more privileged you are, the easier it is to envision human beings as pure individuals, unconnected to other individuals in any way that matters….”
I’ve grown to share this view. Yes, not noticing the problems faced by members of other races IS racist. Satanic? Demonic? No. I’m merely saying that the things I focus on are, in part, a function of my race. That’s all.
Yes, that is a low threshold. Yes, a lot of people suffer from racism. No, racism is not extraordinary. You don’t have to don a sheet and lynch anyone to suffer from racism.
And you don’t need to feel like you’ve donned a sheet or lynched anyone to admit that you suffer from racism.
I’ve grown to see racism as akin to the common cold: It’s everywhere. It’s mostly invisible. The collective harm it does is huge. The harm it does is mostly inadvertent. You almost certainly have some of it in you right now. But the appropriate response isn’t guilt and shame; it’s a frank acknowledgment combined with an earnest effort to control the damage.
Hi, I’m nobody.really, and I suffer from racism. And I’ve found a lot of really gentle, supportive souls here who have helped me broaden my understanding. No, I don’t share everyone’s point of view here. Yet. (Of course, this thread isn’t over yet….)
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I read this to say that Amp believes that white people ARE justified in challenging prejudice against white people, but that many white people bring up this point merely to avoid confronting the issue of prejudice against non-white people.
I wonder about the best strategy for dealing with this problem. Amp suggests the optimal strategy is to dismiss or minimize the concern. I wonder if a better strategy is to acknowledge and embrace the concern. By acknowledging that white people are both perpetrators and victims of racism, it might help them overcome the paralyzing sense of guilt. And by helping white people identify with being victims of racism, it might promote solidarity with victims of racism and a sense of self-interest in opposing it.
Attac