White Guilt, White Privilege, White. Three terms thrown around in the past year or so. All with negative connotations. With this year’s Presidential election decided pretty much by a handful of white voters, does any of this change?
White Guilt
White Guilt is the individual or collective guilt felt by some white people for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people both historically and currently. (Shelby Steele. A World of Difference: White Guilt) White guilt has been described as one of the psychosocial costs of racism for white individuals along with empathy (sadness and anger) for victims of racism and fear of non-whites. (Lisa Spanierman. Psychosocial Costs of Racism to Whites Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 51(2):249–262 Apr 2004.)
According to a website called the urbandictionary.com, white guilt is “a belief, often subconscious, among white liberals that being white is, in and of itself, a great transgression against the rest of the world for which one must spend their life making atonement.”
I’ve seen this in some of my more liberal friends, but not necessarily among my more conservative ones.
White guilt seems to stem from the notion that just because someone is of the Caucasian race or white as it is sometimes referred to, that means one must bear the burden of years of oppression that some minority groups have endured at the hands of others, presumable also of the Caucasian race. It mainly centers in the United States, where various groups were treated very poorly, such as the African Slaves and Native Americans, whose people were systematically killed or herded out of their native lands to reservations.
It does not presuppose that atrocities against various minority groups did not take place. Because they, in fact, did take place.
And yet, white guilt is supposed to make whites more sensitive to race issues. It seems to me, unless one is themselves guilty of acts of racism, why would one feel guilty for something they were not a part of? For example, my family arrived here beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, having had nothing to do with slavery. Should they and, in turn I, feel guilt for that dark period in American history? I think not. Should we be a part of the collective guilt of the nation who allowed it? I am not so sure of that either.
White Privilege
Hot on the heels of white guilt is White Privilege. White Privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of “white privilege” to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people. (Wikipedia)
This is a term that, for me, is a bit easier to understand. Throughout much of the history of the United States, it has been largely Caucasian or white, Anglo-Saxon men who have been in charge. So much so that at the founding of the nation, black slaves were thought to be less than a whole person and women had little to no voice. Not until the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, were Blacks considered a whole person. Not until the 19th Amendment did Women in this country secure the right to vote. The Voting Rights act of 1965 was passed to insure no racial discrimination in voting. Some might argue that fight is still not over.
Some critics say that the term uses the concept of “whiteness” as a proxy for class or other social privilege or as a distraction from deeper underlying problems of inequality. (Arnesen, Eric (October 2001). “Whiteness and the Historians’ Imagination”. International Labor and Working-Class History. 60: 3–32.) In other words, any privilege can be attributed to economics as much to skin color or ethnic origin.
I can partial agree with this assessment. Would one argue for white privilege in the National Football League, the National Basketball League or even the Major League Baseball, where minority groups have excelled over the past 20 years or so. At one time, yes, but not now.
There was a period of time at my work where there was a huge push to hire and promote women and minorities to the company. This was to correct low numbers of women and minorities in the workplace. A noble pursuit. However, at that point, white privilege seemed to go out the window since being white was now a disadvantage in getting hired or promoted. I’m not saying it was necessarily wrong, but a fact at that point. In some cases, lesser qualified people were hired in order to fill quota numbers, rather than hire the most qualified.
White
Even the word, “white,” has taken a beating this past year. Of course, the example I am referring to is the removal of a new Primary Song because of its use of the word, “white.” In fact, the title of the Song is “White.” According to the Salt Lake Tribune, “the song was written by a 17 year old Asian LDS young women who based it on the biblical verse, Isaiah 1:18, which says “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.””
“Because ‘white’ and ‘whiteness’ are so entangled with the concept and experience of race, this song is very inappropriate,” Janan Graham-Russell, a black Mormon writer in Evanston, Ill., said on Facebook. “I get the [doctrinal] idea but more care should be taken with anything involving the word ‘white’ and the LDS Church because of its history and the present experiences of black members.”
What is interesting to me is that the term, “Black” or some of its foreign language versions were viewed as a pejorative when used to describe African-Americans. But as African-Americans rejected the terms “colored” and “negro,” Black became an acceptable term.
I don’t know if I buy the argument. Of course, I understand the Church history associated with Blacks and the Priesthood and I don’t wish for people to be uncomfortable. But imagine how the young women who wrote the lyrics must have felt, thinking she was doing a good thing, most likely unaware that some might take offense. Chose not to be offended?
Also, in some circles, not necessarily LDS, some would like to remove the word “sin” because it has its own negative connotations. (Christian Post)
So what do you think? Do you, if you are a white person, feel white guilt, recognize white privilege and/or view the word “white” as a pejorative?
Wheat & Tares 
To the moderators: this article is racist and should be taken down.
@anon, haven’t Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and other civil-rights leaders repeatedly said that we need open discussions on race? Holder even chided Americans for being “cowards” regarding race discussions. But can’t you see why? Someone expresses an alternative view, and you refuse to discuss, and instead label the post as racist. Why don’t you engage the discussion with substantive insights if you have any to give?
@anon,
That’s pretty funny
I don’t feel guilty in a general sense for being white. I do feel very guilty for stupid, offensive things I said and did before I realized how stupid and offense they were to people of color.
I grew up (in the 1980s) in a very diverse location. Because of that I was generally unaware of white privileged because it didn’t exist so obviously in my school. The high achieving (academically, especially, but also socially) kids were Asian, Middle Eastern, Black, Hispanic. The only kids who I saw socially ‘different’ were those that didn’t speak English ( who were all lower income Hispanic). But here’s the sad thing… Years later a girl from Indian background did a big FB post on how difficult it was for her at our high school. All kinds of other schoolmates chimed in with agreement. I was totally floored. There were problems, but because they were subtle and not happening to me, a white teenage girl, I hadn’t even see them. That to me is white privilege.
And not to pick on the OP, but I’d g guess that is why the first Anon reacted strongly to this post. It’s a post about race issues written from the perspective of a person who is living above, not in those problems.
In addendum to my previous comment, I guess I see the idea of white privilege being discussed openly and white privilege being seen as a negative as a natural progression. Rather than being allowed to sit on a balcony looking down on a problem other people have, I’m forced to join the throng as someone race problems effect (admittedly in a different way). I can see how that can be painful (nobody likes having punches thrown at them), but is it truly not right? Why shouldn’t there be a negative effect on the white population, when for generations there has been a negative effect on populations of color?
Or maybe I’m just rambling. I wouldn’t say I have this all figured out.
I guess I don’t see a reason to heap burden and guilt on one group to elevate anyone else. Everyone desires equal opportunity. At some point, it may have been necessary to to intercede in order to cure past inequities. I don’t see privilege coming from skin color as much as I do economic power. That is pretty much colorless.
But to dismiss the post as racist because one might not agree, is kind of a ridiculous attempt at shutting off discussion before it starts.
I am not white, and I personally do not want people to feel “guilty” because “feeling guilty” typically doesn’t change behaviors — “feeling guilty” can often be paralyzing, which is counter productive.
What I would like is for people to change systemic imbalances. I think a recognition of privilege (on whatever axes — I think that race privilege is separate from socioeconomic privilege, and there can be an intersection between the two) is important to change those system imbalances. I think that we can definitely see examples where you can be a well-to-do black person and still have adverse treatment that can’t just be explained by socioeconomics.
Finally, I want to say that to the extent there is a systemic imbalance, then the real challenge is in misidentifying the removal of that imbalance as being “reverse discrimination”.
Like, Jeff says that in some instances, “being white is now a disadvantage in getting hired.” But to me, what seems to be the case is that we are taking fields where whites are overrepresented and trying to make them more representative of overall demographics (and I think there can be disagreement on how this is done, whether doing this at the job level is “too late”, etc.,) — to get that representation will mean a decrease in the white share of that field, but if that means that being white is a disadvantage, then ultimately, you’re conceding either implicitly or explicitly that whites should maintain the overrepresentations they have had historically.
Finally, in terms of the song “White”, the basic issue is that it’s not a hypothetical for Mormons to believe that becoming white (racially) is equated with purity and righteousness. To the contrary, this is something that Mormonism has promulgated as doctrine for more of its history than it has not. The young woman who wrote the lyrics probably wasn’t thinking about that — and may not even have been aware of the legacy of the church — but I think it’s very important for Mormons to be informed and aware precisely because racial discrimination is not just hypothetical. It is built into Mormon scriptures and Mormon history far more explicitly than in other traditions.
Andrew,
I cannot really disagree with anything you’ve said and I think curing past injustices is something that society should do.
I wonder, though, if we should, in the case, of how Mormons looked upon “whiteness” and used scripture to reinforce it, while it is part of history, should we continue to make an issue of it today. I am not suggesting that we sweep it under the rug, but when do we move on? Never?
We’ve moved on from many other atrocities that have been perpetrated against peoples throughout history ( I didn’t say forget), so why not this? Is it because of the outliers that still believe that stuff?
Jeff,
So, I think the basic disagreement will be in whether someone thinks these issues are completely behind us, or if someone thinks that those issues still affect us today.
I sense from your comments that you think that past policies are behind us and they don’t have any effect now. I disagree. I think that — whether we talk about the church or about American society on the whole — the past policies still affect us now. The past policies spill over in many cases to present policies. If we look at the top leadership of the church, it is overwhelmingly (and disproportionately) white. I mean, yeah, yeah, Mormonism is seen as a predominantly white religion anyway, and the church doesn’t flaunt demographics by race, but I saw a quote from a few years back putting the black membership at 1 MM members (and of course, we hear about the largest growth coming from areas/countries/regions with people of color, not from European/white areas/countries). The membership at the time of the quote was only around 13.5 MM, but even if we said there was no growth in African membership from the quote, then even using current membership numbers, 1 MM / 15~ members total gets into the range of “there probably should be at least one African member of either the Quorum of the 12 or First Presidency”.
However, we could explain why there’s not simply by reference to the past — even if there is no racial bias in the church today (which I’m not sure if that’s true), the fact is that the church heavily relies on a seniority system, so the fact that black men couldn’t even receive the priesthood until 1978 means that we will experience the lingering effects of that for decades (as we are now).
I think that as a church, Mormons have almost assuredly never done the hard work of grappling with this issue. The problem isn’t that we are continually focused on this issue that’s long past and we need to move on. The problem is that we have never focused on this issue, and so we cannot move on *until* we actually move *through* this.
Andrew,
“I sense from your comments that you think that past policies are behind us and they don’t have any effect now. ”
No, it’s obvious they still have effect, by the reaction to the song, which was not even about being “white.” The question is, how long should it have an effect? Does having a African GA change it? I doubt it.
As far as top leadership, it will change, it has changed to some degree. And maybe it takes too long. There are plenty of GAs who are not white. Not yet, in the Q12 or FP, but in the lower ranks. As men gain experience, they will be called. I believe that. I know some people want an Affirmative Action program for Church leadership, but I just don’t think it works that way.
“The problem is that we have never focused on this issue, and so we cannot move on *until* we actually move *through* this.”
I think there has been focus and things are better. Is it perfect yet, no. But you cannot be a part of the solution from the outside…
I like Andrew and Jeff’s discussion. I suffer no white guilt, I am blessed with white privilege, and while I was originally quite irritated that racial sensitivities preclude using prophetic scripture in some contexts, I can kind of see it, even if just barely. Mostly, I’m one of those white people who feels like just treating each other as fellow daughters and sons of God ought to solve the problem and who gets told by the progressives I’m missing the point.
I think we need a more ethnically diverse 12 and FP, but given the growth in Africa, I can also see how men of that calibre might be doing a greater work there, at least at the moment. It will come. The one place in the church that I personally think is completely inexcusable is that all the actors in the temple films are white. That is easily remedied, and I cannot understand how that hasn’t happened already. Personally, I think the progressives in the church ought to be pushing that one, because just like there was no reason for women not to pray in General Conference, there’s no reason people of color shouldn’t be represented in the temple films.
Jeff,
But I don’t know if the “effect” you are thinking of is “people being offended needlessly” or is “people recognizing a valid point with respect to Mormonism past and present”
The question is more like — even if the song is not about racial whiteness, was there any question or vetting on whether the song could be interpreted that way, especially given Mormonism’s recent history of teaching that racial whiteness is moral purity? Would this vetting be more or less likely to happen if there were an African GA? Was there any question on the PR impact of this song, given the history of the church?
Maybe at the end of the day, the song would still be approved. After all, Isaiah 1:18 is still good scripture, right? But the way it worked out, it seemed like no one had even done any questioning — that it wasn’t on anyone’s radar.
From my perspective, as long as the church “doesn’t know” why the priesthood ban was put in place (all it can do is say that it rejects theories of the past), this is the biggest evidence that Mormonism isn’t actually grappling with the issue. The church condemns racism in all forms, but since it “doesn’t know” why the priesthood ban was in place, there’s no knowledge or admittance of whether the ban was itself racist. Every article is just vague enough to let people draw their own conclusions. (And in 2016…in 2017…in whatever current discussion you will see on this topic ever, there will be at least one person who will argue that the priesthood ban was not in any sense racist, as they will argue that limiting the priesthood to men isn’t sexist. The fact that there is *nothing within doctrine to counter this argument* is evidence that Mormonism still hasn’t really grappled with the issue.)
That’s why I think we should pay close attention to black faithful LDS folks. These are not outsiders.
I agree with most commenters that white guilt is kind of silly. Unless you’re feeling guilt because you did something wrong at which point you should use that guilt to change and then you should let it go.
White privilege is another issue. It seems obvious to me that it exists. White people shouldn’t feel guilty about having it, but they should use it to help those without it. I think it can often be difficult (if not impossible) for people who are not marginalized in any area of their lives to see it. I am white and I can’t see it until it is pointed out to me. Maybe other white people can. I think for me the only thing that made me able to see it is how obvious male privilege is to me, but many men can’t see it. I can’t ever remember a time when I couldn’t see it, long before I’d ever heard of it I knew that there were benefits in society that simply being a man gives you that many of the men I knew were not aware of. I imagine that many people of color feel the same way about white privilege (correct me if I’m wrong). Economic privilege is also a real thing that has many of the same effects as white privilege and because they intersect so much it may be easy to attribute all white privilege to economic privilege but I don’t think this is the case.
Martin, I agree with you that if everyone out there treated everyone else as a child of God, likely race would no longer be an issue. Unfortunately we live in a world where 1) a lot of people don’t do that, 2) people who try to do that aren’t perfect, 3) people disagree about what constitutes treating someone as a child of God. I think part of treating everyone as a child of God does not involve treating everyone the exact same way, rather it involves getting to know each individual, what makes them tick, what experiences made them who they are today, and what they really need, rather than what I would need in their position. Unfortunately, on a large scale level, I can’t get to know everyone that well. I can do my best, but I will often be wrong. The more I assume everyone who mentions race as an issue is just trying to sow discord, likely the more often I will be wrong. Also, agreed about the temple films. It does seem a pretty simple fix (especially considering scientific evidence suggests that we are all descended from Africa so if Adam and Eve did exist as literal human beings it is more likely that they were black than white).
Jeff Spector – “How long should it have an effect?”
I don’t know the answer to this question but I think it is at least as long as there are still people alive who can remember when it was preached from the pulpit that black people were less righteous in the pre existence and that South Americans’ skin would become lighter through acceptance of the gospel. Seems like another 50 years at least. It’s been 3 years since the church officially disavowed the priesthood ban as racist (in a quiet way that most devout members of the church still have not read). That is practically yesterday in the grand scheme of things. When I took the marriage preparation SS course 8 years ago we aloud the quote from SWK against interracial marriage. A number of students in my class testified of the importance of marrying in your own race. These people are around the age of 30 now. That’s really young for someone who thinks God wants people to marry within their race. Once again, I don’t know how long this should be an issue, but I do know that we are nowhere close to putting it behind us.
The tension in pro-diversity policies such as affirmative action derives from competing ideals of social equality and individualism. I think most people would agree that in general increasing minority representation in high level work, government and social spheres is a good thing. On the other hand, favoring one particular individual over another because of race goes against most peoples sensibilities, yet such a policy is required to achieve the former goal. The key is balance. We must find a middle groung that reasonably protects, but compromises on both ideals.
The problem with church culture in these types of situations is that the black & white mindset makes reasonable social compromise difficult. Too many members fear letting the camels nose into the tent, so the dig their heels in in favor of the status quo.
Andrew,
“That’s why I think we should pay close attention to black faithful LDS folks. These are not outsiders.”
I was not referring to any faithful members. Their voices are important. But I think it is important for us to rely on our lived experiences. And not tranpose history on to ourselves as though it was our experience.
Are there racists in the Church, yes.
Are there hold outs that try to justify the false doctrine of the Priesthood ban, yes, amazingly.
Does the Church know precisely why, other than the prevailing racist views of the day for the Priesthood ban? Seems like they don’t or they would have said so.
“was there any question or vetting on whether the song could be interpreted that way…” I suppose, but I’ve seen a lot of misinterpretation in my experience. I’ve seen many things misinterpretation when one does not thoroughly understand the entire story, or in this case, song.
I sense an ongoing “them” vs. “us” mentality sometimes. I wish that were not the case.
Mormonism isn’t racist as we are often accused of. Rather, as the scripture teach there are peoples who are favorable. A chosen people is a descriptive phrase. In America, white people are referred to as “gentiles”. The Book of Mormon uses the term, gentile often. The gentiles as presented in the Book of Mormon are a chosen people. There favored by the Lord over over others because they are chosen by the Lord to do a certain work. They are also subject to cursing if they turn away from the Lord after having been favored.
The following verses from the Book of Mormon show God’s dealings with Israel. His chosen people of that day. I suggest we can extrapolate and apply these verses to the Gentiles of America and the current discussion of white privilege.
Nephi is teaching his brothers:
32 And after they had crossed the river Jordan he did make them mighty unto the driving out of the children of the land, yea, unto the scattering them to destruction.
33 And now, do ye suppose that the children of this land, who were in the land of promise, who were driven out by our fathers, do ye suppose that they were righteous? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.
34 Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? I say unto you, Nay.
35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God. But behold, this people had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity; and the fulness of the wrath of God was upon them; and the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers; yea, he did curse it against them unto their destruction, and he did bless it unto our fathers unto their obtaining power over it.
36 Behold, the Lord hath created the earth that it should be inhabited; and he hath created his children that they should possess it.
37 And he raiseth up a righteous nation, and destroyeth the nations of the wicked.
38 And he leadeth away the righteous into precious lands, and the wicked he destroyeth, and curseth the land unto them for their sakes.
39 He ruleth high in the heavens, for it is his throne, and this earth is his footstool.
40 And he loveth those who will have him to be their God. Behold, he loved our fathers, and he covenanted with them, yea, even Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and he remembered the covenants which he had made; wherefore, he did bring them out of the land of Egypt.
(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 17:32 – 40)
@jeff spector
OK. You’ve had a chance to read all the responses to your article. What have you learned and how have your opinions changed?
@anon,
Is this a class and are you grading my essay and oral presentation?
What is your deal? First you call the post racist and they you expect me to report to you?
Jeff, I don’t know that you were responding to me specifically, but to answer as if you were…
“I guess I don’t see a reason to heap burden and guilt on one group to elevate anyone else.”
Burden and guilt are excellent tools of boundary maintenance within groups. If you feel it is being employed against you as a member of a group, that is a piece of information to pay attention to. Such tools are used, because they are effective.
I don’t see the goal as elevating a group of people (what does that even mean anyway?). The goal is to engage a group of people (get them to see the problem, see themselves as part of a problem, get them to help solve a problem). So if someone is falling from a lofty height, I see that falling as being onto one’s knees in recognition of the need for humility.
“I don’t see privilege coming from skin color as much as I do economic power. That is pretty much colorless.”
There is truth to this. I don’t think it’s as simple as you make it seem though. Or always true.
“But to dismiss the post as racist because one might not agree, is kind of a ridiculous attempt at shutting off discussion before it starts.”
My guess is that Anon was attempting to shut you down not because s/he disagrees with (not sure what specific goes here), but because the post came off as insensitive.
ReTx,
“Burden and guilt are excellent tools of boundary maintenance within groups.”
Guilt is, in my opinion a useless emotion or feeling unless it is accompanied by a change. Guilt is associated with sin and guilt or remorse is necessary in order to fully repent. Once that is done, all guilt and remorse should leave. In my observation, guilt is present on an ongoing basis because people don’t really want to do the hard work required to change.
As a number of people have already stated, they do not feel “white guilt.” They don’t think they have anything to feel guilty about. One can feel bad, or be empathetic without having to endure guilt.
“There is truth to this. I don’t think it’s as simple as you make it seem though. Or always true.”
Ok, I’ll bite, when is it not true? I noticed no one yet bothered to comment on my comments about the NBA, NFL or MLB.
“but because the post came off as insensitive.”
Please tell me exactly what I wrote that was insensitive? How is provoking discussion about racial issues always insensitive? Sensitive, yes. Insensitive? not so sure.
Jeff Spector,
“I noticed no one yet bothered to comment on my comments about the NBA, NFL or MLB. ”
Ok, here goes.
NFL:
While over 70% of the players in the NFL belong to a racial minority, as of 2002 only 6% of head coaches were minorities. Since most coaches were once players in the NFL this is a serious underrepresentation. In 2002 the NFL instituted the Rooney Rule which requires that all teams interview a minority candidate for every head coaching vacancy. This increased head coaches to 16% which is still a crazy underrepresentation.
NBA:
As of 2011 83% of players in the NBA are people of color. 33% of coaches and 26% of GMs are people of color. So clearly we are happy to bring people of color into be players but they never make it any further. We use them up and as soon as they hit 35-40 they are no longer of use to us. The white players, on the other hand, often make a lifetime career out of it and become coaches or GMs. The NBA is considered a leader on diversity issues in sports and they still don’t accurately reflect their players and viewers in their management hiring decisions. They have only one black majority owner.\
I don’t have much information on the MLB.
The NFL and NBA are just not examples of times when white privilege does not apply. It is still only rich white people who own the teams, manage the teams, coach the teams, and run the upper management of the leagues themselves even though the pool of applicants for most of these positions is less white than the pool of applicants for almost any other area.
“Does the Church know precisely why, other than the prevailing racist views of the day for the Priesthood ban? Seems like they don’t or they would have said so.”
Maybe regarding the origins of the Priesthood ban we should be asking, Do they care enough to have asked God?
Other questions that could go along those lines:
Have our leaders asked God if women should hold the priesthood?
Have our leaders asked God as to the divine nature of Heavenly Mother?
Have our leaders asked God if polygamy was truly inspired and will it be present in eternity?
And on and on.
Because church officials are not transparent on these issues we can only speculate. I want to believe they care and that they are on their knees grappling with these questions and they just haven’t got an answer. It hurts to think they don’t care. But even telling us from the pulpit “We don’t know the reason for the Priesthood ban. We have been petitioning God to give us more information but answer hasn’t come yet.” That’s at least something, no?
As doubt continues to exist as to our leaders concern regarding racial issues in the Church, with the Priesthood Ban as the most glaring example, then Jeff I would say we are most definitely not there yet.
Jeff,
Statements like this is part of why I said I sensed that you thought past issues were past, and not relevant to us in the present. Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you, but I’m interpreting your words here as if you believe that people of color today don’t personally have lived experiences that confirm to us that current policy, practice, and belief is most certainly affected by the past, so we are not simply transposing history onto ourselves.
Well, I for one have been told that I was so righteous that I would become white and delightsome. This was meant as a compliment, by someone who was very excited about the growth of the church in Africa. (they probably would not say the same thing about me today now that I’m disaffected, XD.)
I just want to re-emphasize (and look: we already have a comment from Jared to fit in with my earlier comment that *someone always comes to defend the ban*) that the church has never said the Priesthood ban is false doctrine. So it’s not simply that there are “hold outs” that try to justify this “false doctrine”. It’s that there is not anything authoritative to determine whether the Priesthood ban is false doctrine. The church utterly *does not know* what the Priesthood ban was. They reject and disavow past theories about why the Priesthood ban existed, but they have never stated that they reject the Priesthood ban itself.
I think it’s very strategic for the church to leave this ambiguity around. I think it’s theologically difficult to accept that the church could have implemented an incorrect policy for so many years, so the church leaves it open for members to believe that the policy may have been correct (albeit an example of the mysterious ways that God works), rather than explicitly and unequivocally rejecting the policy itself.
I am going to come right out and admit that I have had periods of time where I felt white guilt. I still do. I think that it is an element of really engaging with issues where some have accumulated privilege and others have genuinely suffered. I work in social service doing crisis counseling. I am intimately familiar with the carnage left behind from racial oppression along with all other types of oppression. I also am an active member of the church. My ward is diverse unless you look at presidencies and bishoprics. All white. I spend hours in the service of the church and sometimes that means spending hours listening to misguided lessons and talks with an element of racism among other isms folded into the experience. This leaves me with complex feelings about how I use my time and talents and who I choose to associate with. An element of that is white guilt. My thought is that if a person who enjoys white privilege doesn’t feel a complex range of emotions around that issue, perhaps they should engage the topic more. It doesn’t mean I sit paralyzed with white guilt, but it means that the process of working through those emotions helps to develop the skills to make change in my community. I can say with absolute certainty that my ward and stake has not left racism in the past. This is not because the marginalized aren’t willing to stop being offended. This is because the dominant are entirely unaware of the impact of their words and often their deeds. There is a lot more work to be done on this topic.
As far as the church is concerned, here is my main issue.
That we have an odd situation where the previous racist attitudes, practices and doctrines have been officially jettisoned, yet the scriptures and supporting information has not. This is why, as was mentioned above, we still have relatively young people adhering to racist doctrines and beliefs of the past. The church is in a bit of a mess, as far as this is concerned. We still have the prophet is infallible, all conference talks are scripture, follow the prophet regardless narrative. Whilst we have that, as well as 1. A stifled discussion about race, 2. Predominantly white leaders from Utah, 3. Current form for targeting minorities, such as LGBT and 4. A prosperity gospel, our contribution and understanding of this issue, as a church, will be confused and irrelevant.
Collective guilt has a use. Germany’s insistence on remembering the atrocities committed in WWII is an apt comparison. They had to make laws against denying the Holocaust – it is too easy for people to rationalize things or pretend they never happened. The collective guilt isn’t just penance, though, it is there to remind people of what they are capable of and inspire them to prevent it from happening again.
Although our church has not committed atrocities near to that scale, there are injustices that we as a Mormon community have committed. It took us over 150 years(!) to publicly recognize what happened at Mountain Meadows and apologize to the descendants of those who were murdered. We still don’t talk about the Circleville Massacre. The 2013 Race and the Priesthood essay was a step in the right direction by disavowing racial justifications, but it does not recognize the priesthood ban as wrong. We haven’t even come close to making up for damage the ban caused, and, like Andrew, I’m not positive the church ever wants to go there. I asked my husband one time how West Africans he taught on his mission dealt with the knowledge of the priesthood ban. He said for most of them it wasn’t a big deal – it was in the past, and everyone knows white people were racist in the past. That’s great, but the church isn’t willing to declare the ban solely the result of racism. As long as it was God’s work, that black people just paid the price for not being part of a chosen race, then a wrong was never committed. Therefore, guilt does not need to be felt for the ban itself.
Germany has essentially legislated a hypersensitivity to anti-Semitism and anything hearkening back to Nazi ideology. They recognize beliefs still exist, and they will NOT give permission for them to take hold again. The song “White” easily evoked Mormon justifications previously given for racist attitudes (even though everyone recognizes it was not the intent!). The Church has not developed any sort of hypersensitivity to past attitudes they say are disavowed. They do not seem to be ensuring those attitudes aren’t perpetuated.
It’d be easy to think about slavery if I only had abolitionist ancestors, but I had ancestors who owned slaves. That is part of my heritage, so yes, I feel some White guilt for that. I feel Mormon guilt for the attitudes and things my Mormon pioneer ancestors did, even as I try to understand their actions within the context in which they lived. I feel familial guilt for attitudes that I saw in my parents and grandparents that I do not agree with, even as I understand they were shaped by surrounding culture.
Speaking from a history of depression, guilt is not in itself a bad thing. It is a recognition that you (or your community, or your family) did something bad or allowed something bad to happen. Guilt is not useful when it is disproportionately heavy (like people who experience depression) or disproportionately light. But a proportionate amount inspires better behavior and doing what you can to ensure those bad things don’t happen again.
LDS_Aussie,
“That we have an odd situation where the previous racist attitudes, practices and doctrines have been officially jettisoned, yet the scriptures and supporting information has not. ”
Interesting statement given that scripture has been used throughout the centuries to justify killings, torture, and all kinds of heinous acts in the name of God. I suspect most of us would say that they were being misinterpreted.
Are you suggesting that scripture will don’t like or has been misused to be removed?
Mary Ann,
“Collective guilt has a use. Germany’s insistence on remembering the atrocities committed in WWII is an apt comparison. ”
And I am asserting that guilt is the wrong word. Remembrance is a better word, IMO. If you are not responsible, why feel guilt? The Germans have gone to great lengths to insure that their children are taught and remember what their fore-bearers did, they are not asked to “feel guilt for it.” They are taught to never repeat such atrocities. The Jews are taught to “never forget,” not to continually flog the Germans for the crimes of WWII but so they never again go like Lambs to the slaughter.
I realize many are not satisfied with the response of the Church toward the Blacks in the Priesthood issue. I also know there are some oldtimers that cling to the explanations of the past and try to justify it. But we are also taught that forgiveness is as much for ourselves as for those we forgive.
Andrew,
“Statements like this is part of why I said I sensed that you thought past issues were past, and not relevant to us in the present. Please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you, but I’m interpreting your words here as if you believe that people of color today don’t personally have lived experiences that confirm to us that current policy, practice, and belief is most certainly affected by the past, so we are not simply transposing history onto ourselves.”
To me, history is relevant as a lesson, not as a perpetual torch to be carried. We all have episodes in our Family History where bad things happened to our ancestors. I had members of the family killed in the Holocaust, does that mean I should hate Germans in perpetuity? I think not.
And I also realize that Church members of color have real lived experiences since the Priesthood ban was lifted that are at direct contradiction with how the Gospel teaches us to treat or fellow Brothers and Sisters and that it still goes on today. To me, this is an important current issue which should not be swept under the rug and must be addressed until it stops. That is a lived experience of some of our younger members of color.
Andrew,
“Well, I for one have been told that I was so righteous that I would become white and delightsome.”
Not sure of the context of this comment, but I would hope the person telling you that didn’t expect you to change the color of your skin. if so, that was ridiculous, though I know there were some prevailing ideas floating around the Church to that point for some time.
Seems silly to be given that Jesus, himself was not a white guy.
Jeff,
What I am telling you is that in *my lifetime*, people have said that they perceived my righteousness would lead to a change in the color of my skin, and the thing is, this was entirely meant as a compliment — that as a result of my righteousness, this is what would happen for me. This isn’t just carrying history as a perpetual torch. They didn’t expect *me* to change the color of my skin. They were hopeful that Jesus would do it with the power of the Atonement.
And what I am saying finally is that we don’t really have a doctrinal way to reject this. You are so quick to say “that was ridiculous,” but what I am trying to tell you is that there is really nothing in LDS doctrine to decisively reject these ideas. As LDS_Aussie pointed out, we still have scripture that calls for the whitening of Lamanites through righteousness. (And being from Oklahoma, there are definitely still people who take this literally.) You suggest that there’s a lot of scripture that is misused and misunderstood. What I am saying is that since Mormonism doesn’t comprehensively grapple through those issues, you have no basis to say who is misinterpreting or not. Is Nephi killing Laban OK? Was God’s commandment to kill every Canaanite a misinterpretation? Did that really happen, or was that just Israelite propaganda? The average Mormon doesn’t get have a biblical studies degree to tell him or her that these things should be taken in any other way other than the straightforward reading — and the LDS manual for Joshua definitely allows us to believe that maybe the Canaanites were just evil enough that they should all have been killed after all…and maybe God is mysterious enough that it will all work out.
Have you ever heard people say things like, with the power of the atonement, LGBT people will become straight, cisgender, etc., in the afterlife? That even if they can’t change in this life, if they are righteous and chaste, they will change in the next through the Atonement? No one would certainly bat an eye at that comment. This was like that, only on race.
So, when you say:
The issue is that since the church hasn’t grappled through this issue, there isn’t a concrete answer on what the Gospel teaches us. There is a lot of ambiguity on race that allows people to believe whatever they want. We can’t just say that they are holdouts or that they are believing stuff contrary to the gospel. There is nothing really contrary to how the Gospel teaches us to treat our fellow Brothers and Sisters in his particular comment. In fact, this man thought he was sharing the gospel — literally good news that through Jesus, *anyone* could become white. After, isn’t the atonement for stuff that human action alone cannot accomplish?
I definitely do not think that average Christian really appreciates what Jesus probably should actually have looked like as a Middle Eastern Jewish dude. And I certainly don’t think most Mormons think of Heavenly Father as Middle Eastern/Jewish.
Jeff,
“But we are also taught that forgiveness is as much for ourselves as for those we forgive”
But the Church hasn’t asked forgiveness for the Priesthood Ban has it? They haven’t even acknowledged in certain language that it was wrong. Were it to do so I think it would lead to healing for many, but cognitive dissonance for the numerous members who see the leadership as infallible. Hence the Church’s Race and Priesthood Essay is available but not at all promoted. So here we are. Yet again, the once persecuted minority has to give the benefit of the doubt.
If guilt means that a wrong was committed that should incite rectifying action by those responsible, then yes I feel white guilt about the Priesthood Ban. The fact that I was not personally involved or even alive when it happened doesn’t mean that I can just stand by as an observer. Rather I should do what I can. As a woman in this Church who will never have even the possibility of authority to make any institutional difference, my white guilt should can lead me to care, learn, and attempt understanding and empathy while having outrage at the injustice. It can cause me to speak out when someone at Church comments that when people in Africa are baptized their palms turn white (true story). The “official” definition of the verb “guilt” may implicate only those directly involved. But I see the term “white guilt” as something more encompassing – understanding history and acknowledging current injustices and white privilege. Without it, it’s too easy to just remove myself completely from race issues and tell myself that since I wasn’t directly involved it has nothing to do with me. To raise eyebrows at racist comments but not correct them. To be cool with the status quo.
Mary Ann, I want to like your comment 100x
“to the extent there is a systemic imbalance, then the real challenge is in misidentifying the removal of that imbalance as being “reverse discrimination”.” I had this same discussion with my dad years ago and when he read a chapter in Freakonomics that I had recommended, he changed his view on the lingering effects of multi-generational racism and white privilege. I simply think it was a blind spot up to then, as it is for many white people, especially if they are older. This isn’t just about how “racist” people are now, but about the fact that opportunity is developed or diminished over generations. It’s not reverse discrimination to try to eliminate systemic biases. Bolstering opportunities for groups of people who have systemically been underprivileged by the system might feel like that, but that’s only because the system favors its own.
“There are plenty of GAs who are not white.” Not plenty. Plenty implies enough or more than enough.
“But you cannot be a part of the solution from the outside” Well, that’s only true to a point. Some would argue that you can’t be a part of the solution if you don’t sit in one of the red chairs. We have a very top down church.
“I think that as a church, Mormons have almost assuredly never done the hard work of grappling with this issue.” The same could and should be said for a host of issues. The status of women and gay people for example.
“We use them up and as soon as they hit 35-40 they are no longer of use to us.” This is exactly what I was thinking about pro sports. It’s our current equivalent of gladiators.
Jeff,
“But we are also taught that forgiveness is as much for ourselves as for those we forgive.”
I agree with you on this. Maybe a different example will help. Say you have a husband who cheated on his wife. It all comes out, he comes clean, and they both decide they want to make the marriage work. In order to do so, he will need to earn back the trust that was lost. His wife will work on forgiving him the one incident, but it’ll take time and a lot of effort on both their parts to fully heal. The husband will do a show of good faith by allowing his wife access to his phone whenever she wants, by having her monitor text conversations, by being incredibly transparent with wherever he goes and what he is doing. She will see visible proof that he is trustworthy, and at some point they will work together to decide when (or if) he can stop doing all those extra steps to constantly prove he’s being faithful.
So for that guy, his guilt in the original incident made it so he was primarily responsible to prove he could be trusted again. While the wife forgave him that one incident, she was allowed space to be wary and see for herself that her husband was delivering on his promise to change.
So when I say a collective guilt, we can totally be forgiven the original offense (and forgive ourselves the original offense by looking critically at what happened), but the declaration of guilt assigns the burden of proving that we have changed.
@angela
“It’s not reverse discrimination to try to eliminate systemic biases. Bolstering opportunities for groups of people who have systemically been underprivileged by the system might feel like that, but that’s only because the system favors its own.”
This is the heart of the matter. Regardless the motivation for change, change must happen to make things right. If the ruling class (so to speak) feels guilty, and that motivates change, then I’m all for it. I am old enough to remember school desegregation, and I remember hearing arguments along the lines of “Why should we destroy the education system for everybody by bringing black kids into white schools? It’s not *our* fault they are lazy underachievers!” I also heard similar arguments for hiring supposedly “underqualified” minorities once I was in the workforce. I considered both arguments to be racist for two reasons. First, there’s the assumption that minorities are less qualified than white people and second there’s the assumption that we need not offer a helping hand because we (white people) aren’t directly responsible for the plight of minorities. My argument–as you mention–is that making things right takes generations, and it requires sacrifice by those in power over whatever length of time is required for those oppressed to catch up. I am also glad the LDS Church withdrew the song “White”, if only for the poor optics. Some may complain this is going too far. Even if that’s true (and I don’t think so), then there are times when a bit of “overcorrection” is called for. Just as it takes generations to repair damage done to oppressed people, it takes generations for those in power to begin to recognize the subtle ways they perpetuate oppression without even realizing it. As for the LDS Church itself, I won’t consider the problems addressed until we see minorities, LGBT, and women in the highest levels of leadership. I would think the LDS Church cannot heal itself until it recognizes, apologizes for, and corrects past injustices. Otherwise the wounds will just continue to fester.
Ang,
“Not plenty. Plenty implies enough or more than enough.”
Here is the list of non-white and/or non-American GAs. I excluded Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (unless Maori) and South Africa.
Elder Ulisses Soares
Elder Gerrit W. Gong
Elder Marcos A. Aidukaitis
Elder Jose L. Alonso
Elder Ian S. Ardern
Elder Yoon Hwan Choi
Elder Valeri V. Cordón
Elder Claudio R. M. Costa
Elder Joaquin E. Costa
Elder Massimo De FeoElder
Elder Benjamín De Hoyos
Elder Edward Dube
Elder Larry Echo Hawk
Elder Enrique R. Falabella
Elder Eduardo Gavarret
Elder Carlos A. Godoy
Elder Walter F. González
Elder O. Vincent Haleck
Elder Hugo E. Martinez
Elder Hugo Montoya
Elder Adrián Ochoa
Elder Rafael E. Pino
Elder Joseph W. Sitati
Elder Michael John U. The
Elder José Teixeira
Elder Juan A. Uceda
Elder Arnulfo Valenzuela
Elder Chi Hong (Sam) Wong
Elder Kazuhiko Yamashita
Elder Jorge F. Zeballos
Elder Claudio D. Zivic
This list represents 37% of all Seventies, including the Pres of 70s. And represents 28.4% of all GAs. I’d say that was plenty. Maybe still not enough, but some might not be satisfied until all GAs are non-white..
Jeff – the church has a much better administrative process for adding stuff than it does taking stuff out. D&C 132 – or at least some of it – should not be in the Canon. Some of the filth that Brigham Young said about people of colour should be gone. Some of the nationalistic rubbish Ezra T Benson said should be gone.
We have a situation where for those who hold racist, sexist, anti gay, or whatever views, they can find plenty of support in our teachings. The fear of offending those who said such, or diminishing the role of a prophet or leader appears more important than creating a cohesive narrative, based on what we now believe.
Mary Ann,
“So when I say a collective guilt, we can totally be forgiven the original offense (and forgive ourselves the original offense by looking critically at what happened), but the declaration of guilt assigns the burden of proving that we have changed.”
I think it comes down to semantics. I looked up the word guilt and here is what I found:
Definition of guilt
1. the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty; broadly : guilty conduct
2. a : the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously b : feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : self-reproach
3. a feeling of culpability for offenses
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilt
I suppose you could apply meaning number 3 to this concept of collective guilt, but again, I see guilt as an excuse, unless one is using guilt or remorse in order to complete a repentance process.
Bottom line, I suppose, I don’t believe in collective guilt unless one is part of a group directly guilt of the transgression or offense. It doesn’t mean the issue is swept under the rug and forgotten.
I love how all of my comments get a thumbs down. It just shows ya.
Maybee
“If guilt means that a wrong was committed that should incite rectifying action by those responsible, then yes I feel white guilt about the Priesthood Ban.”
You certainly can choose that if you wish. I joined the Church in 1982 after the ban was lifted. My own study of it found it spurious at best even back then. When I taught I would not allow anyone in my class to spout those justifications without challenge. So, I will not be satisfied until all of it is repudiated and forgotten. That doesn’t mean I have to feel guilt for it. I had nothing to do with it.
To start splitting hairs about the literal meaning of “guilt” is to miss the point. People are going to feel what they feel–one person’s “guilt” is another person’s “shame”. The issue of direct responsibility for the oppressed class’s plight is a non-issue. The fact is that white males are, in general, relatively privileged compared to women and people of color. The only reason for this advantage is being born a white male. Regardless of one’s feelings or sense of responsibility, white males owe those less fortunate a helping hand, understanding, and sensitivity if and when it’s needed to help equalize the equation. Also, it’s not just a matter of “not sweeping it under the rug”. That’s not enough. It’s a matter of recognizing the obligation and acting on it. Maybe we need to bring back noblesse oblige. As regards the makeup of LDS Church leadership, the *highest levels* where the real power lies look pretty pale to me:
https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/first-presidency?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng
And that includes God, Jesus, and most of the celestial inhabitants:
” The only reason for this advantage is being born a white male.”
Completely disagree. It is historical and it is changing quite rapidly. And it is largely economic. There is no advantage to being born poor no matter what your skin color. Syria, for example….
@jeff specter
“And it is largely economic.”
Still missing the point. Are we going to act to help those less fortunate or are we going to make excuses that “it’s not my fault” and do nothing to help those less fortunate? Also, generally speaking, being born a white male–regardless of economic status–is a *relative* advantage. Consider the caste system in India, for example, where males dominate females and lighter skin correlates to a higher caste, regardless of economic status (the caste system is illegal, but still a basis for discrimination). Even in the United States in an economically poor population, being born a white male confers a relative advantage within that population, generally speaking. The question for each of us is “Are we going to engage in hair-splitting and hand-waving or are we going to pitch in a help make a change for the better–even if that means sacrificing some of our status and wealth to do so?”
I think the question of whether White Guilt is over initially struck me as the wrong question, but maybe it’s just the phrasing. Malcolm Gladwell just did a podcast series called Revisionist History, and he talked about the backlash that follows doing something “enlightened,” It’s no surprise that once we elected a black president, our goodwill was spent. Time to revert to xenophobia, sexism and racism! Gladwell would say that once you’ve proven to yourself that you’re not a [racist, sexist, snob, otherwise bad person] then you give yourself license to dial back on your commitment to equality, enlightenment or progress.
@angela c
“It’s no surprise that once we elected a black president, our goodwill was spent. Time to revert to xenophobia, sexism and racism!”
And now that we’ve elected an orange president it’s only gonna get worse…. 😉
I agree with Angela. I feel that we are getting caught up on semantics.
Jeff you say “That doesn’t mean I have to feel guilt for it. I had nothing to do with it.”
Please reread the rest of my previous comment. I don’t feel guilt for the Priesthood Ban the same way I feel guilt for wrongdoings I’ve personally committed. To me the term “white guilt” has become a phrase that means something different. I do feel “white guilt” for the Priesthood Ban, and I’m glad I do. I hope that men feel “man guilt” that women didn’t pray in GC until recently, among many other things that are such a painful part of my experience as a woman in Mormonism. Because I yearn for them to understand, to desire to understand. I want them to care. Without their caring I feel a wedge between myself and them and I don’t feel we can ever “be one in Christ.” To me “white guilt” means caring about someone enough to try and understand their experience even if I’ll never experience it myself. And to see how I today may be part of the problem, and that if I were born at the time of the Priesthood Ban I would have likely been a part of the problem. It’s not about feeling shame or needing to repent. It’s just marinating in the ugliness of it all and pondering, caring, working hard to understand. If that’s what Zion means then count me in.
i don’t think anyone is saying that economic privilege doesn’t *also* exist.
But the disagreement is whether all forms of privilege are reducible to economic privilege.
And the data doesn’t support that.
The data suggests, for example, that poor whites are less likely to be incarcerated than even rich blacks (when we know that, just for example, with drug use, middle class whites use the most, then poor whites), and poor whites tend to live in more affluent neighborhoods than even middle class blacks and Latinos, and even when deindustrialization cut many blue collar jobs, poor whites (who had the lowest level of college attendance or completion) were much more likely to be hired in the remaining blue collar jobs over blacks and Latinos.
Studies showed that whites with a criminal record were more likely to get interview call backs than blacks with clean records.
Jeff, I agree that I think we’re getting caught up in semantics. I’m looking for a word or phrase similar to “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” that I can apply to other group identities besides national identity.
“The German Duden lexicon defines Vergangenheitsbewältigung as “public debate within a country on a problematic period of its recent history—in Germany on National Socialism, in particular”[3][4]—where “problematic” refers to traumatic events that raise sensitive questions of collective culpability. In Germany, and originally, the term refers to embarrassment about and often remorse for Germans’ complicity in the war crimes of the Wehrmacht, Holocaust, and related events of the early and mid-20th century, including World War II.”
I read these comments, especially Jeff’s and Andrew’s with great interest. I agree with both of them and actually don’t see much disagreement between them — just a difference of perspective or inability to fully appreciate the other’s perspective. I naturally share Jeff’s more than Andrew’s, but with their give and take, I’ve come to understand Andrew’s better than the other times I’ve read him. It’s been really good for me.
I too noticed Jeff’s comments being thumbed down constantly. Someone ought to explain why. It seems to me that if you’re going to “thumbs down” someone, it ought to be for behavior, not because you disagree with them, and certainly not because you don’t like them. There’s not much discussion if you’re only interested in governing the boundaries of your echo chamber, or in trying to change their opinion through childish bullying.
@maryann
Vergangenheitsbewältigung literally means “coping with the past”. I can’t think of a good phrase off-hand. Maybe, simply, “resolution”?
Ang,
“It’s no surprise that once we elected a black president, our goodwill was spent.”
I actually think it was the pot boiling over at that point. Those people who could not accept a Black President let their true feeling be known and for some reason were not ashamed of themselves. In fact, they are still doing it. They are on my Facebook feed as we speak making incredible vile statements about the President and First Lady. Obviously, they have no guilt, because they have no shame.
BTW, i am a fan of Gladwell.
Andrew,
“But the disagreement is whether all forms of privilege are reducible to economic privilege.”
Agreed, the judicial system is one where race has created an inbalance. But you cannot deny that in many of those cases, poverty was a driving factor in putting those folks there in the first place. Together with all the other factors, like poor education, low employment, single parents, etc…. Much of that is attributable to economics. Heep on top of that prejudicial attitudes and a huge disparity is created.
Mary Ann,
Vergangenheitsbewältigung – I like word as have always like that the German language puts words together to create a new meaning. I think this is the correct terminology for what I am getting at.
I just do not see the need for the self-flogging that some people seem to enjoy,
Anon,
“Still missing the point.”
I still have no idea where you are coming from. You have missed my point of this post from your very first comment. You might try to read “Hillbilly Elegy.” Pretty interesting read on White Privilege.
Jeff,
Given that poor whites are less likely to be incarcerated than *well-to-do* blacks, I think we can question that poverty was a driving factor in putting those folks there in the first place.
In other words, moving out of poverty isn’t a cure-all for black folks.
Andrew,
C’mon, it goes a long way. Anyone moving out of poverty is better off.
Jeff,
It’s just that
1) for whites, moving out of poverty helps a lot more
and
2) in many cases, moving out of poverty still results in worse results for blacks. (I think that at best, I’d frame this as: blacks need much more socioeconomic privilege to overcome the negative discriminatory biases against blacks.)
I mean, I’d definitely *rather* be a well-to-do Harvard professor than destitute and living in the ghetto. But regardless of whether I live in the hood or a fancy neighborhood, I’m still much more likely to get the cops called on me for looking “suspicious” — even if I’m trying to get into my own house in my own neighborhood.
@jeff spector
“I still have no idea where you are coming from.”
At least we agree on that.
I have enjoyed the post and conversation in the comments. I wanted to share a couple experiences. In Seminary in the mid 90s, my white teacher told our all-white class about a conversation he had with the one black kid in our grade where he asked him how he felt that his skin would turn white in the resurrection. I know that specific idea has been taught by past Church prophets, I am not aware of it ever being repudiated. Our temple films and artwork still seem to support it or at least not challenge it. There may be some more recent artwork that includes multiple races and skin tones in heaven artwork that I am unfamiliar with.
I watched the film “Twelve Years a Slave” in a foreign country. It did not make me feel proud to be an American. I felt ashamed for the past sins of my country. If guilt is such a loaded word, maybe we can replace it with the word empathy. We feel empathy for people who have been wronged and continue to feel the effects from those wrongs.
God bless Andrew for being willing to engage with you Jeff. The moment I saw this was your post I knew I didn’t want to say a word . . . because when you engage on race you do so without ever being willing to change your mind. Everything he has said here has been echoed a million times in thousands of marginalized voices who describe their experience in our (default) white society/culture.
I admit I used to see the world as you did; believing in reverse racism, hating that people were trying to make me feel guilty for something I had nothing to do with. Then I began reading the experiences of people of color and believing them. I learned about intersectionality, that economic disadvantage can exist and intersect with racial disadvantage and sexual orientation disadvantage and that there can be layers of oppression. I grew up poor on free lunch and yes I had to work hard and pay for my own education by working and paying for every penny of college on my own. And I still have white privilege, even though things were hard coming from a lower class. I didn’t experience the discrimination PoC face. And Continue to face.
I’m grateful I finally listened to those voices. The biggest thing we can do to overcome racial prejudice is to believe people when they describe their experiences. Even in the OP you refer to Janan’s perspective as not believable over your own. That’s racial bias, your own white privilege.
Our biggest problem comes from white people choosing to be offended when told they are at an advantage. The emotional fragility of white people not being able to acknowledge privilege is our biggest obstacle. That’s white people rejecting white guilt. But if one approaches the issue with an open mind, and finds all of the studies that prove that people have inherent bias and that it has real consequences in the lives of people of color (take your pick on google, you want to start with the one that shows people start believing black boys are dangerous at age 10 and that white 20 year old boys are still kids??……or the one where the same resume with a black name gets 1/4 of the call backs and 1/8 of job interviews compared the when they put a white name on it.) There are hundreds of studies with data that prove people of color are NOW experiencing and suffering from systemic racism. And it has nothing to do with whether your ancestors owned slaves. So I reject white guilt and I pick up white responsibility. I have a responsibility to constantly be working on removing my own inherent bias and actively work to dismantle structures that are discriminatory.
Whether that is done by calling out bias and privilege as racist ….. or by tip toeing around the fact and softening the words and sweet talking white people until they are willing to open their eyes and see it and acknowledge it……..remains to be seen. White people will continue to be “snowflakes” whose feelings are hurt anytime someone points out data and facts and systemic problems. They, just like you, will hear stories of discrimination and bias against PoC and write them off as one-time, random experiences with wackos and not a symptom of wide-spread bias and discrimination.
A particular profession is statistically 50% male, 50% female, and 20% minority. All have the same credentials. I interact with a successful business within that profession and recognize that their employees are 97% male, 3% female, 98% white and 2% minority. None of the women are of childbearing age, 80% of the men had fathered babies within the last 3 years and plan to father more in the future.
Statistically, every time a white man was hired by that company, the professionals still looking for employment become slightly more minority and more female. To hire so many white men is either a bizarre statistical anomaly or active discrimination against women in general, women of child-bearing age and minorities.
That is white privilege and male privilege. To take away that privilege would show a work force that is statistically equal to the potential candidates.
As a white woman working in that industry, the issues are very real to me. I am consistently requested and considered excellent in my position. I am consider one of the very top producers by my company. I am genuinely liked as a person. But, when the guys get together to go fishing and bond, I am not invited. Those are men-only events. And yes, I like to fish and camp.
In the future, if there were layoffs at work, I would expect to be let go before one of the fishing buddies.
Jeff: “hose people who could not accept a Black President let their true feeling be known and for some reason were not ashamed of themselves. In fact, they are still doing it.” Yes, I think that’s more accurate than the idea that having voted for a black president, we now feel like we’ve proven we aren’t racist. On the contrary, we narrowly voted for a black president, and now we narrowly voted for an orange one on a racist platform against a woman. That just means we’re very evenly divided between those who are racist and those who hate racism (in addition to obvious policy divides).
Hillbilly Elegy would teach us that poor whites feel and are disenfranchised (by their poverty and lack of opportunity, and their clinging to dying rural communities). I don’t think that’s the same thing as my high ranking male colleagues from my American Express days who felt that if we were going to have all these diversity groups, there should be a “white male” diversity group. Amex was fine with that, BTW, but it is a pretty ballsy lack of awareness in my book. Most of those men who felt that way were Mormons, which makes me think that we are bolstering their feelings of disenfranchisement by teaching that they deserve privilege.
Absolutely “yes” to the question “do you recognize white privilege?”
As others have pointed out, there are numerous research studies which verify the reality of “white privilege.: I can just look at the experiences of my all white family,–never have any of us been pulled over/stopped/ticketed by police officers without having committed an obvious infraction. (and I can count those stops for 5 people on eight fingers in the past 20+ yrs). Never have I been stopped while jogging to a movie theater (Eric Holder in Georgetown). Never have I needed to “have the talk” for fear of what might happen if any of my sons were pulled over by law enforcement.
There remains much ignorance about the pervasiveness and extent of racism within our current and past history. For example, I only recently learned about the effects of policies by the Federal Housing Authority 1934-1968 which compounded and exacerbated racial inequities. The results of these longstanding inequities we still see today such as, half of Black Americans Born Poor Stay Poor, 7 out of 10 black Americans born into the middle quintile fall into one of the two quintiles below as adults. (Brookings Institute). In the different parts of the country, states, I’ve lived in, a majority of black American children attend the worst performing (and often the worst funded) schools.
As for white guilt– “a belief, often subconscious, among white liberals that being white is, in and of itself, a great transgression against the rest of the world for which one must spend their life making atonement,” I would disagree except we must remember the atrocities and great harm mankind is capable of especially by those who are privileged using superficial (race etc) justifications.
No, we are nowhere close to closing the book on racism within our church or American culture. Only when people feel heard, feel validated and valued by our actions and words, can we move beyond to something greater. Looking at it politically, I’ve been ashamed at how Pres. Obama was treated. Sometimes he was not afforded the dignity and respect other presidents have enjoyed. For example, few to no Republicans in Congress stood up to denounce the questions and challenges to Obama’s citizenship status. When questions were raised as to John McCain’s citizenship status in 2008, Democratic leaders in the Senate introduced and passed a resolution affirming John McCain a U.S. citizen.
Lastly, yes, the church culture needs to avoid references of “whiteness” to Godliness/purity. There remains too much ignorance, dodging of
hurtful history and insensitivity.
Kristine,
“I admit I used to see the world as you did; believing in reverse racism, hating that people were trying to make me feel guilty for something I had nothing to do with.”
You apparently do not know the way i see the world. I do not believe in reverse discrimination and I posed a question about whether people, certain should feel guilt.
As of the last census, whites are about 62%, Hispanics 18%, blacks 12%, Asian 5% and mixed/other 3%. If you had a group group/team/whatever representing the population you would have 6 whites, 2 Hispanics, 1 black and probably 1 Asian. On balance, only 1 in 10 will be black. In about 20 years, whites will probably drop to 5 in 10 and Hispanics to 3 in 10.
Media, activists, and whomever seem to send a message that blacks (they say minorities to be inclusive although it seems like a black driven agenda) are under represented at 1 in 10 (across the nation) when that’s only what the numbers support.