Credit:
My husband and I took a bicycle tour in Berlin during one of my work trips several years ago. As the tour guide pulled over, he announced that we’d arrived at the “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe.” My husband and I immediately exchanged a telling glance, shocked by the conspicuously blunt naming convention. Just a year or so earlier, we’d attended a plantation-style tour during a visit to Charleton, S.C. and were honestly confused as the tour guide repeatedly referenced the “involuntary workers” who had lived on the property. Perplexed, I raised my hand to ask if she was referring to enslaved Black people. She sheepishly responded, “Yes.”
In many ways the stark contrast of the Berlin experience with our Charleston, S.C. experience is emblematic of the very American obsession with euphemisms and avoidance as a misguided attempt to ameliorate centuries of anti-Black racism. While other societies with similarly troubled racial pasts have understood that soberly acknowledging and naming the problem is a critical and necessary part of the restoration process, ours seems stuck in a destructive cycle of denial, revisionist history and deflection. To make matters worse, historically there has seemed to be an obsession with placating, appeasing, even commemorating the oppressors oftentimes at the expense of respecting the dignity of (much less providing remuneration to) the oppressed. Obvious blatant examples are cities still covered in confederate idolatry or the reparations paid to slave owners in the District of Columbia after the Civil War for the loss of their “property” (while offering no compensation to the actual enslaved people.)
This same white comfort vs. anti-racism progress tension crops up during discussions focused around how we discuss anti-racism issues and concepts in the workplace, academic institutions and beyond. One interesting example is recent research conducted by University of Michigan School of Information PhD candidates Christopher L. Quarles and Lia Bozarth entitled “How the term ‘white privilege’ affects participation polarization, and content in online communication.” In their study, respondents were asked the question, "Should colleges rename buildings that were named after people who actively supported X?” where X was replaced with either the term “racial inequality” or “white privilege,” then the researchers studied responses based on stance (pro/con), the frames (arguments, topics and ideas) used in the response and their assessment of response quality.
Among the conclusions based on the findings seems to be an admonition to reconsider use of the term “white privilege” during online discussions of race in order to be more sensitive to the “unpleasant emotions” that the phrase might conjure up—ostensibly for white people. “Those who want inclusive online conversations around race and/or support for racially sensitive policies should think carefully about the use of language like white privilege that targets the racial identity of specific groups,” their research explains. “This language can deter the targeted group from participating.” The article continues, “Using slightly different language, such as racial inequality, that has more of a shared meaning across cultures can lead to conversations with broader participation and greater shared support.” The article further explains, “As commonly used, the phrase white privilege draws on this tendency to conflate individual traits with group averages, in a way that creates unpleasant emotions.”
Indeed, many would argue that these types of studies and analysis focused around how to best soften language or otherwise minimize white discomfort during discussions of racial equality and anti-racism are actually patronizing to white people, disrespectful to Black and Brown people and ultimately ineffective for lasting anti-racism progress. While University of Michigan (including its Center for Racial Justice) did not respond to a request for comment for this article, Christopher Quarles did respond. When asked about the perception some may have that an underlying premise of the study is that white people need to be appeased or cajoled into supporting racial equity (as if it’s assumed not to be core to their own value system), Quarles responded, “I want to emphasize strongly that that's not the underlying premise of the research. The way you've framed it absolutely does seem demeaning. We did not write that in our research article, and that is not how we approached the topic.” Notably though, in Quarles’ The Conversation article about his research he characterizes “white privilege” as “strong language” and further states, “When faced with the term “white privilege,” it’s not surprising that some whites will look less favorably on the speaker’s ideas. And it makes sense that the whites who are more sympathetic will tend to withdraw.”
Unfortunately, studies like this can be easily interpreted as suggesting that that white people can’t “handle” terms like “white privilege” or that racial equality is really a Black person’s value or priority and white people therefore need to be convinced, cajoled or appeased into supporting anti-racism. The simple truth is that everyone should value anti-racism, equality and racial justice, and studies that seem to focus on how to best engage “supportive whites” (to use the research study’s parlance) can advance the narrative that white people are not necessarily deeply concerned about racial inequality themselves but instead should be lobbied to sympathize with Black and Brown communities in their plight. “When we are changing words and changing terms to address white discomfort, I think we're doing white people a disservice overall,” insists Misasha Suzuki Graham, Co-Founder, Dear White Women. “We're playing into this concept of white fragility, where we need to cater to those interests, or we can't move this conversation forward. I disagree with that.”
“There is nothing wrong with recognizing privilege and racism exist. We can’t get to solutions by denying the problem,” explains Dr. Angie Beeman, Associate Professor in the Marxe School of Public and International Affairs at Baruch College and author of the upcoming book Liberal White Supremacy: How Progressives Silence Racial and Class Oppression. “We should also question why we focus so much on the comfort level of white people rather than the blocked opportunities, threats, and loss of life Black, Indigenous, Asian, and Latinx communities face and how we can effectively change these conditions.” Certainly, many Black and Brown people may feel disrespected at the inordinate, yet predictable focus on how to make white people more comfortable as institutions and organizations awkwardly lean into these conversations about race and racism spurred by the summer 2020 racial reckoning.
Arguably, the mere idea of performing linguistic gymnastics in order to avoid the term “white privilege”—that many would argue is a simple historical fact—is somewhat insulting and disrespectful to Black and Brown communities. Furthermore, the discussions of feelings around terms like “white privilege” or “white supremacy” seem to invariably focus on white feelings with little regard for or consideration of Black feelings. “Being unable to honestly talk about racism in America and be believed, is causing Black Americans generational psychological harm,” explains S. Anne Marie Archer, attorney and Founder and Principal of The AntiHR, HR Lady, an HR consulting firm. “It’s high time we stop sacrificing our mental well-being for white comfort.”
Many would also argue that these types of avoidance or softening approaches are also simply not an effective strategy for advancing anti-racism. “When we continue to allow people to avoid using the correct terms because of a misunderstanding about what ‘white privilege’ really means, instead of using that opportunity to educate people about why that term is so important to use in the scope of anti-racism, then we're on that same slippery slope that allows us to remove parts of American history that make white people ‘uncomfortable’ from our textbooks,” insists Suzuki Graham. “So let's keep defining that term with precision, but we can't avoid it because it makes white people do the work of anti-racist learning.” Suzuki Graham also reminds us of the benefits of discomfort. “I believe that change comes from discomfort - because in comfort, there is ease, and ease never seems to be the catalyst for anything except more ease. It's discomfort, though - the thoughts and words that make you challenge what you know, and seek out what you may not have been taught or never learned, that causes you to grow. So I'm all in with those words.”
“When the focus is on making white people comfortable, racial inequity is bound to be maintained,” insists Beeman. “If we want to challenge racism and other forms of inequity, we must discuss it openly and honestly. This may turn some people away, but it may also bring more people to the table who are tired of being silenced or overly cautious about issues that affect their everyday lives and survival.” Beeman continues, “White privilege exists and we cannot create change by pretending it does not exist to spare the feelings of those who benefit from it.”
Quarles’ and Bozarth’s study briefly acknowledges that their academic colleagues frequently posited “Even if the term white privilege makes whites feel uncomfortable, they still need to hear it. It’s part of learning about race.” When asked about this point that discomfort can be a natural part of the growth process, Quarles responded, “Discomfort can absolutely be a sign of growth! However, discomfort by itself is not sufficient, because (a) discomfort doesn't mean you're wrong, and (b) people respond to it in different ways.”
Given the fact that chattel slavery lasted for 246 years and Jim Crow racial discrimination persisted for nearly a century, it would seem that that appeasing or cajoling white people has never been a recipe for meaningful progress on racial equality and justice. One could certainly make the argument that that anyone who would disengage or retract support for a racial justice issue at the mere mention of the term “white privilege” most likely wasn’t terribly committed to anti-racism in the first place. And if that’s so, it would seem foolish to invest energies lobbying their “support.”
And while some will mistakenly insist that terms like “white privilege” are specifically intended to demonize white people, others will point out that acknowledging that whiteness has historically been, and in many ways continues to be, a source of advantage in this country is simply telling the truth, and if we have to skirt around the truth of racism, we have little hope of eradicating it. Indeed, while it may be tempting to ascribe to a watered down anti-racism approach focused on avoiding white discomfort, let’s remember Dr. Martin Luther King’s clear admonition in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action’… Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
