The Virulently Unapologetic Racism of "Anti-Racism"

I can't stop thinking about the list on Aspects of White Culture issued by the Smithsonian of all places.

This is the Smithsonian, via the National Museum of African American History trying to explain the concept of whiteness. According to them, these things are uniquely attached to white culture:

• Individualism

• Objective, rational linear thinking

• Work before play

• Planning for the future

Etc. Obviously some things highlighted should be considered universally bad (e.g. the idea that your worth is dependent on your wealth). But hooooooly fuck y'all. If you told me that Richard Spencer or David Duke created this infographic, I would have no reason to doubt you. It is explicitly heralding what I, and I would hope almost everyone, believe are worthwhile aspirations and relegating that to be either exclusively or primarily within the provenance of White People.

Objective thinking is for white people. Delayed gratification is what white people are capable of. White people are the ones who are polite in communication. Additionally, it describes near universal phenomena and ascribes it directly to white people. Do you live in any society where the nuclear family is a central unit and the husband is the breadwinner? Congrats! You're just copying "white culture". Do you believe hard work is the key to success? You are now white. Are you a scientist? Apparently only possible if you are white.

This is literally taking one of White Nationalists favorite talking point, namely that "Whites are responsible for Civilization and the Modern World" and says "Yep, isn't that awful?"

What the fuck.

This is just awe-inspiring, definitely the best example of the horseshoe theory in action I have ever encountered.

One cynical explanation for this is that the tenets of “human biodiversity” (commonly shortened into HBD) which acknowledges group differences across race and ethnicity are sinking into broader mainstream acceptance. Is it possible that these so-called “anti-racist” educators are just acknowledging this reality but trying to put a polite spin on things? The originator of The List, Judith Katz, appears to be saying exactly this.

When the participants finally were able to move through the layers of denial, avoidance, shame, and confusion, they began to generate in their groups a fairly consistent listing of dimensions that characterize White Culture in the United States. While it was clearly understood that not all whites believe in the same set of assumptions and values, it was also clear that White Culture forms the underpinnings of what many whites believe is “appropriate” behavior in many organizations. White Culture I the lens through which many white people view, evaluate and judge themselves and others regarding what is “professional” and “normal” behavior in many contexts.

These assumptions, as stated above, get baked into the policies, practices, and norms or our organizations. When that occurs it puts whites at advantage – cultural advantage – and all other groups at a disadvantage. It creates “Affirmative Action for Whites,” i.e., a playing field that is slanted to our advantage.

Katz apparently believes that even a purportedly "race-neutral" metric like emphasizing the scientific method, will inevitably have a disparate impact on race. Sometimes that is done on purpose, like Southern states implementing literacy tests for voting. But Katz seems to have an expansive view, and this includes basic tenets of modern civilization.

I did see comments claiming that the infographic isn't claiming that these aspects are "unique" to white culture. That's true, but I have trouble interpreting it as anything but describing aspects that are at least predominantly within the umbrella of white culture.

Otherwise, if it was just intended to be a grabbag list then it would be quickly overwhelmed by banal entries. As an analogy it would be like if I made a list of "Aspects of polynesian cuisine" and listed "cooking with heat", "more than one ingredient per meal", "meals often shared with others", etc. as entries. That list would be useless. Contrast that with something like "mostly based on seafood and tropical fruit", "grains virtually non-existent", and "multiple uses for coconut".

---

I happen to have a friend who actually works as an antiracist and diversity trainer, along the same lines as Robin DiAngelo progeny. She seemed confused as to why I found the List so objectionable. We got into a decent conversation relatively speaking, but it was painful because we seemed to be talking past each other for the most part. I think I have a better handle on things so I'll try to summarize it as best as I can.

First, an analogy. Most positions of power in our society are held by men who also exhibit traits generally considered as masculine. This includes being assertive, stoic, aggressive, and not showcasing emotion or vulnerability. It's fair to say that the dominant culture, from the standpoint of what you find in institutions of power, is masculine. This presents an obvious barrier to anyone who doesn't subscribe to this culture, namely anyone who exhibits traits generally considered as feminine. This is an old story repeated in multiple ways. I don't want to get into the specific merits of this next finding, but this theory at least serves to explain situations where women are passed over for promotions and raises because they fail to be assertive enough within their masculine-dominated workspace. It says nothing about their specific ability, but the idea posited is that this cultural maladjustment is unjust because it hinders otherwise capable people back based on superfluous and gratuitous criteria. From that standpoint, it is important to identity what the dominant culture is, and to take steps to make it more "inclusive" specifically by de-emphasizing certain aspects of the dominant culture. This says nothing about the specific merits of each aspects, but instead shifts the focus on the collateral consequences on those who fail to meet this arbitrary line.

I think most people would be on board with this thinking, or at the very least can follow the logic. I am and I do.

The intent behind the List (including the "alternative" one my friend sent me) is supposedly the same as what I described above. It's important to enunciate aspects of the dominant culture and identify the ways in which it marginalizes anyone who doesn't meet its standards, especially if the barrier is arbitrary or capricious. I am fully on board with that last sentence.

But here's where it goes fucking haywire, it specifically labels the aspects of dominant culture as part of "white" culture. The implications seem obvious to me; namely that white people are at least predisposed to herald these aspects in contrast to other races. This is exactly what white supremacists and nationalists say when intellectually defending their idea of an ethno-state or otherwise asserting racial supremacy. Even more so when things as foundational as "perfectionism", "delayed gratitude", and "planning for the future" are considered white aspects.

I figured out a way to fix this though. Instead of "aspects of white culture", why not just call it "aspects of the professional-managerial class"? PMC for short. Re-reading the List and its alternative while replacing "white" with "PMC" makes it infinitely more palatable for me. I gather that if I wanted to succeed as a Wall Street banker, I'd probably want to take up golfing, boating, or cocaine (or all of the above) even though these are completely unrelated to my concrete abilities in finance. Similarly, if I want to "get ahead" broadly speaking and be welcomed within the wingspan of fellow PMC, it behooves me to take pointers from the List.

What is painfully ironic, is that one of the best ways to illustrate this acculturation is through a quiz by Charles Murray from his book "Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010" where he describes a new upper class completely disconnected from the average American. I took the quiz years ago and I still bring it up at dinner parties as a fascinating illustration of the bubbles that we live in. Have you ever walked on a factory floor? Have you seen the latest Transformers movie? Have you ever attended a parade that wasn't a gay pride parade? Do you have to wear a uniform for work? Etc.

All of these questions highlight an aspect that the vast majority of white Americans share, but because those white people are not part of the upper class, their facets don't become accepted as part of the zeitgeist.

Ctrl+F and replacing White with PMC is my "saving construction" (to steal Chief Justice Robert's line) to resuscitate the idea behind the List. I think it's a fair attempt. What's leftover, and what I think is beyond hope, is asserting that because white people tend to be in dominant spaces, whatever the dominant culture is is also "white culture". This, to me, is making a classic fallacy of "squares have four sides, rectangles also have four sides, therefore rectangles have sides of equal length." I wish I can be more charitable than that but I'm just at a loss.

We reached an interesting equilibrium where the charge "blacks are lazy and seek short-term gratification" isn't met with a refutation, but instead "well work ethic and planning for the future are white values anyway and supporting those values means supporting white supremacy".

Bonus: Here's a very funny skit about how racists and wokists don't disagree that much.