Is the American race debate honest?
The Whiteness Project is a PBS interview series set to launch soon where people who identify as “white” give their take on the topic of race. The first installment is Inside the White/Caucasian box, and features 21 short clips of interviews conducted in Buffalo, NY. Interviewees are asked to speak candidly about how they feel their “whiteness” is perceived by minorities, how they feel they are treated in the workforce (affirmative action), how America should address its racially divided history, and whether they feel any privilege from their “whiteness”, among other things.
Some of the responses to these questions are expected for some reason — like one IT specialist who reflects on the lack of diversity in the workplace and one man who says he feels “cheated” by affirmative action — while others are jarring and borderline uncomfortable — like one woman who admits she is scared of black men, a man who feels that he is entitled to reparations because his ancestors were white slaves, and a woman who says she doesn’t get “the white person treatment” because she’s heavily tattooed. It should not be surprising that interviews are a little uncomfortable because they are honest. Honesty (about money, politics, religion, and race) is a sure source of discomfort, and as a general practice, we’re instructed at a young age to avoid discussing “uncomfortable” topics in open company.
This project is interesting because the story of race in America today is told primarily by the voices of minority groups and non-minorities who agree with minority points of view. Conversations on race often focus on reflections and research on the history of the devastating residual effects of discriminatory policies and social constructs that have made it so that even IF the scales were somehow balanced, one side will have an advantage over the other. The fact that the minority side of the story dominates the discussion of race today is no surprise. After all, the minority voice has only been included or valued for the past 50–60 years of a 230-plus year history. [Granted, my use of the words “included” and “valued” are arguable and conjure up another discussion altogether depending on where you stand, but hear me out. We can have that discussion another time.] While the conversations about the minority experience have been open, honest and mostly taken as true, it appears that the conversation is one-sided.
I imagine that the producers of this project had a hard time finding volunteers to sit for these interviews because of the nature of this honest conversation. Generally those who disagree with an accepted way of thinking are silenced and pushed away in society, or they shy away from sharing opinions out of fear of retaliation. Others who disagree are assured that they can still think, feel and act the same way as long as they do it where they can’t be seen or heard. And that presents a core issue with the conversation we are having about race. The “if you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything” approach hides the ball, so to speak. Can we effectively discuss an issue like race if honest perspectives are hidden and are allowed to transfer into more dangerous (institutional) ways?
Consider the racial tensions that boiled within this country in 2008. Then-presidential candidate Senator Obama was faced with pressure to speak up on race following audio and video leaks of Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s opinions on Black American anger. Was the tension really about Jeremiah Wright? Or was it that, by considering the first non-white candidate for President who had a real shot at winning, America was forced to have a public conversation on race that had been suppressed and pushed into private quarters following the Civil Rights Era? Why was then-Senator Obama the one to deliver the “A More Perfect Union” speech on race, and not any of the other 2008 presidential candidates? Because the other candidates were white. When we think about discussions of race in this country, we look to the minority voice; the voice that had been excluded for centuries. [The same goes for why we look to women when seeking insight into gender equality issues (goosebump alert at minute 1:44).]
That is what makes The Whiteness Project interesting: it includes no minority opinions. The views expressed in the interviews are troubling at times, but probably (more or less) useful overall. What they are useful for exactly is a question I don’t have the answer to, however. A few questions come to mind:
Why do we have conversations on race in the first place? From the time I was considered three-fifths of a person to now, have discussions on race produced positive results? What more information do we need from these conversations in order to ensure that we move, generally, in the right direction as a country on this issue? Is any of this even possible?
What is clear, however, is that there is more work to be done in America to face race. Despite the fact that some of the views expressed in the first installment of The Whiteness Project interviews are uncomfortable, they are mostly honest. They are positive in that they are not presented in a combative way that could inspire resistance to the overall message (except for this guy who out of nowhere asserts that “white boys aren’t going to be pushed around”). Now is as good a time than ever to engage in meaningful conversations about perspectives on race.
Besides, think about this: in 2016, children all across America who only know life in this country with Barack Obama as their President will likely have a non-Black President for the first time in their lives. As they grow into their teenage and young-adult years, how different might their perspectives on race be from the generations that precede the Obama era?
There is only so long that we can have conversations where each side only listens to itself (Congress is a shining example of what happens in an ideological stalemate!). Disagreement is one thing. Honest conversation is a bigger thing. If we are ever to move forward with actionable steps to hold one another accountable for who we are and who we are going to be as a country, this conversation is one that has to be had — honestly and openly.
I don’t know about you, but I’m looking forward to the parts of this series, and the conversations that follow.
[Credit: Jamelle Bouie’s Slate article “The Gulf that Divides Us” that introduced me to The Whiteness Project]
