Jul 21 • Whiteness
YOU THINK I TALK ABOUT RACE TOO MUCH.
June Christian:
"What you mean is that white people should have veto power over how plainly I name it. Racism may remain brutal, but the language describing it must be washed, folded, and placed gently beside white innocence. The harm may stay raw. The conversation must arrive moisturized and speaking in a soothing voice.
Nobody calls racism divisive. They call the person who interrupts it divisive. The building may burn for generations without becoming impolite, but the alarm is accused of ruining the atmosphere.
Apparently, the emergency is not the fire.
It is that somebody interrupted brunch to mention the smoke.
“Playing the race card” admits there is a game, that the cards carry power, and that outcomes involve more than effort. “Reverse racism” confesses even more. It reveals a belief that racial harm becomes unacceptable only when white people imagine it might travel in their direction.
White people are not angry that race has power.
They are angry that they might not control all of it.
Toni Morrison wrote in *Playing in the Dark* about how Blackness helped construct the American imagination while whiteness remained unnamed, unexamined, and mistaken for universal. Black people became racial while white people simply became people. Black writing became identity literature while white writing became literature. Black anger became a problem while white comfort became the atmosphere everybody else was expected to breathe.
Did you notice who “you” was?
Until now, I had not explicitly said white people. I did not need to. Everybody knew that the unnamed person whose discomfort organized the argument, whose innocence required protection, and whose objections demanded an answer was white.
That is how thoroughly whiteness has been standardized. It does not merely occupy the center. It removes its name from the seating chart, calls the center neutral, and treats everybody else like a special interest group requesting five minutes on the agenda.
The unnamed leader, scholar, homeowner, expert, candidate, and citizen is white until an adjective announces otherwise. Black writer. Latina executive. Asian candidate. Indigenous scholar. Woman president.
White people get to be people.
Everybody else receives a label measuring our distance from the alleged human standard.
Even this post began by bending around white comprehension. I anticipated their denial, organized the argument around their innocence, and prepared remedial office hours for adults with libraries, Google, professional development budgets, and the recorded history of the United States sitting in their pockets.
No more.
We know the room did not arrange itself. We know the difference between being welcomed and being trusted, between being visible and having authority, between receiving a seat at the table and having any power over what gets served.
We did not misread the meeting, the performance review, the hiring decision, or the sudden concern about our tone. We were taught to doubt what we saw because our clarity made the arrangement harder to defend. The problem was never our ability to see.
The problem was the institution’s commitment to darkness.
Policies did not write themselves. Wealth did not drift by divine accident into certain families, neighborhoods, schools, and companies. Leadership did not remain racially predictable through centuries of coincidence.
People made decisions. Institutions protected those decisions. Executives later described the results as mysterious inequalities nobody could explain.
When the old language became embarrassing, they changed the language without changing the arrangement. “White only” became “culture fit.” Exclusion became “not quite ready.” Hoarded opportunity became a “pipeline problem.” Discomfort with Black authority became concern about “executive presence.”
The machinery survived. It just learned how to publish a diversity statement.
I am an expert in this shit. My expertise was studied, examined, defended, and conferred by the University of Missouri Board of Curators.
Some white leaders manage departments, budgets, companies, and public reputations, yet become functionally illiterate the moment whiteness becomes the subject of a sentence. Suddenly, basic history needs more research. Ordinary nouns require a task force. The same leaders who make million-dollar decisions before breakfast need six listening sessions to determine whether racism has had consequences.
Their discomfort is not peer review.
Racism is not inherited through blood. It is inherited through property, policy, institutions, wealth, deprivation, and quiet lessons about who belongs in power and who must prove they belong anywhere.
The United States abolished slavery without repairing what slavery built. It ended legal segregation without returning what segregation protected. It outlawed discrimination while allowing the wealth, authority, networks, and institutional habits discrimination produced to remain largely where history had placed them.
America prohibited the conduct and protected the proceeds.
Then it renamed access justice.
A few doors opened, a few faces changed, and institutions used those faces as proof that exclusion no longer mattered. They hired people they once rejected, photographed them for the annual report, denied them meaningful authority, and called the arrangement transformation.
Access is not repair.
A nation cannot steal for generations, invite the descendants of the people it robbed into the lobby, and declare the matter settled because they may now apply for a key.
History supposedly ended, but white people kept what history distributed. The laws changed, the language improved, and the assets remained protected. Now the people holding the proceeds believe the offensive act is mentioning where those proceeds came from.
That is why they drag the conversation toward tone. Tone is the emergency exit people use when the argument has blocked every respectable doorway. When they cannot dispute the history, they critique the delivery.
Too angry. Too blunt. Too divisive. Too uncomfortable.
Their discomfort matters naught.
The conversation is not a hostage negotiation with white comfort. It does not require their agreement that the fire is hot before we name who lit it, who inherited the property, and who continues collecting rent.
It must ask who holds the authority, who absorbs the cost, and what those in power are prepared to repair, return, surrender, or change. It must refuse vocabulary instead of courage, representation instead of power, and statements of values instead of the practice of them.
I am beginning that conversation. Not to persuade people committed to misunderstanding, but to make what we already know harder for institutions to deny.
I do not talk about race because I am obsessed with the past. I talk about race because the past is still hiring, lending, promoting, policing, protecting, and collecting interest in the present.
Whiteness keeps objecting to the invoice while enjoying the account.
Silence is how the inheritance clears probate.
I am interrupting the transfer.
And they are furious because they had already made plans for the estate."
1
3 comments
YOU THINK I TALK ABOUT RACE TOO MUCH.
powered by
skool.com/deconstructing-theater-1925
We're deconstructing white supremacy, antiblackness, race, and racism in theater and our daily lives.
Suggested communities
Powered by