Saturday, 6 October 2018

Is there a difference between being white and being a white supremacist?



Is there a difference between being white and being a white supremacist?

I believe there is - but, some white people make the distinction quite blurry, if not altogether nonexistent, and this needs to be ironed out. I'm writing to clarify that it's okay to be white; that white supremacy, on the other hand, is not okay; and that the difference between these two must be clear in everyone's mind.

So, let's unpack it, in ~1500 words.



Being white is just fine

When I think about the white people who are close to me, it's utterly clear to me that my blackness is not perceived by them as a threat to them, nor do I perceive their whiteness to be a threat to me. We can spend time together, work together, enjoy a meal, or a round of golf, or a hike or bike ride, or sparkling conversation that lasts into the wee hours, talking about our pasts, our plans, our lives, our stories, our cultures, and genuinely enjoy each other’s company. 

Being white is just fine. Being proud of your heritage, wherever you may be from, is just fine. Read this twice. Believe it. It is okay to be white.

A pivotal pivot

But, with some white people, a curious thing happens when white supremacy is called out - they start defending their whiteness. Somehow, to them, calling out white supremacy is an attack on their heritage, their culture, their whiteness. 

And when that pivot happens, it seems to belie some deep-seated awareness of the degree to which white supremacy is ingrained in our Western society, systems and institutions, and how much it has contributed to a white-centred world view. In other words, too much of what it means to be white was built up by white supremacists, to the extent that it's now hard to clearly see a difference.

White supremacy is relative

My white loved ones, friends, and colleagues who know  - and live out - the difference between whiteness and white supremacy, have no problem living and letting live, recognizing that people who do not look like them have the same right to take up space as they do. 

Celebrating their own culture is not at the deliberate expense of others' cultures. They do not derive their sense of self-esteem from perceiving themselves as better than others, because they recognize that their lives and cultures have merit and value that stand alone. And that's a beautiful thing.

Supremacy is inherently relative - it needs something else beside it that can perceive - and treat - as inferior. And, in a society that purports to consider all people equal, supremacy actively contests and hinders progress towards equality. (We'll revisit this below).

White supremacy is not about being white, um , sort of...

Think about the logical mechanics of this quote from a KKK leader in North Carolina about the man who killed Heather Heyer, a white woman peacefully protesting against white supremacy:

"Moore applauded Fields’ actions and called the suspect a ‘white patriot.'
"Nothing makes us more proud at the KKK than we see white patriots such as James Fields Jr., age 20, taking his car and running over nine communist anti-fascist, killing one [expletive] lover named Heather Heyer," Moore said in the voicemail. "James Fields hail victory. It's men like you that have made the great white race strong and will be strong again."North Carolina KKK leader: 'I'm sorta glad' people got hit, woman died in Charlottesville.

To a white supremacist, a white person who sympathizes with a person of colour is an enemy who is better off dead. To a white supremacist, it's more important to be a white supremacist than it is to be white.

White supremacy is violent

In this white supremacist leader's own words, "white patriots" make the KKK proudest when they are living out their white supremacist views violently. In his mind, and the mind of white supremacists, it is these violent acts that make the white race strong and will make the white race strong again.

White supremacists cannot live in equality with others. Notice, I did not write that they can't live in peace with others. They can, as long as they are in charge and people of colour "know their place". 

But, when oppressed people stand up for themselves and claim equal rights under the laws of the land, or just mind their own business while going about their business, white supremacists proactively orchestrate a pre-meditated backlash that is, all too often, brutal and deadly (a few examples include sharecropper lynchingsJack Johnson riotTulsa black Wall Street destructionConfederate monument erections...see my notes in my Evernote on My new take on the term "whitelash", part 1 - it will become a polished article on this blog with functional links before too long...but if you have Evernote, the links will work right now. And, if you don't have Evernote, there is a free version!)

White supremacy hurts white people, too

This bears repeating - white supremacy doesn't just hurt people who are not white. White supremacy hurts white people, too. In many ways.

The murder of Heather Heyer, as mentioned above, was just the most recent, and well-known example, that white supremacists have no qualms about putting a white person who sympathizes with people of colour in their crosshairs. 

In addition to these visible, outward acts of violence, white supremacy hurts white people invisibly, because it belittles their own dignity. By making their self-worth inversely proportional to their perceived lack of worth of others, they fail to just accept the intrinsic, inalienable dignity of their own very being. If all lives truly matter, then there'd be no need to denigrate others to feel good about one's self - they could just accept that their lives matter, and that other lives' mattering does not take away from the value of their lives. 

But, as it is, white supremacists demonstrate, in their need to oppress others, that they don't see value within themselves that can stand on its own merit. And, that's sad. And not true. And dangerous, because dismissing dignity hurts, and hurt people hurt people. 

Supremacists and activists both see the difference

Think, again, about that KKK leader's seething hate for Heather Heyer, a white woman. He is a white supremacist, which trumps being white. Heather Heyer was white, but she was not a white supremacist. Neither of them identified with the other. They were both very clear about their positions on this difference, and they were living out their expression of that difference.

There ought to be a clear distinction between these two opposing views in the minds of all people, because there is a distinct difference in reality, and having this clarity puts is in closer touch with reality.

So, as I wrote at the top, I believe there is a difference. And I believe lots of people see the difference and live out that difference in good and not so good ways.

How about you? Do you see the difference? If so, how are you living out that difference?

Why I wrote this

There are several paths that led me towards writing on this (which will eventually be discussed). To wrap this up for now, I'll just mention my intended audience - white people, who will fall into one of three groups: those who will
  • dismiss it wholesale;
  • find that it resonates with what they already believe; 
  • fall into yet a third group, which may be the most important group of all, and the group I'm addressing specifically by writing this.
Those in the first group won't be persuaded one iota by this article. To them, I thank them for at least reading it at all. We've got to be able to venture outside our own echo chambers and engage civil discourse across viewpoints, so I certainly neither want nor expect that the only people who read this were in agreement with me in the first place. At any rate, I hope some of these people will reconsider it.

Those in the second group are already like-minded, which is groovy. If anything, writing may provide another approach for them to use in their travels and conversations. 

The third group is somewhere in the middle - white people who may indeed not be racist, but have no particular sense of urgency that white supremacy is a threat; or feel that equality and justice are available to all people in our society in equal measure, or basically just aren't clear on the difference, and hadn't ever been particularly deliberate about taking a stand against racism and bigotry, starting with the uncomfortable exercise of exploring their own unconscious bias.

Social progress needs more of these people to align with humane ideals that actively contest the foundations of institutionalized inequality, and I hope this piece helps some of them gain sufficient clarity to take a decided stand against white supremacy - and sharing this article can help!

One love, y'all.



Sunday, 27 December 2015

Artificial intelligence and God




Friday, 27 September 2013

Rock the Bells hip hop festival cancelled - the end of an era?



Today, a friend mentioned to me that the Rock the Bells hip hop festival stops in DC and NJ was cancelled

Perhaps it was just a matter of poor promotion...but I suspect it's more than that.



During my research for The Essential Artist, I found that the simplified, general history of the musical branch for pop music appeared to be rather as follows:

  • 1940s, swing/"big band"
  • 1950s, rock'n'roll
  • 1960s, psychadelic rock
  • 1970s, hard rock
  • 1980, heavy metal
  • 1990, hip hop/"rap"
Yes, there were other genres happening concurrently in each decade (such as "new wave" in the 80s which itself was equally significant if not moreso, albeit for a briefer period and in a different way. I had to acknowledge this even though criteria for ranking the relative influence of any genre is beyond the scope or purpose of this quick reaction article).

While it is convenient to compartmentalize the genres in neat ten-year successions, the seeds of each dominant genre did germinate in the years before solidification - in fact, the emergence of heavy metal was as early as 1970, and of hip hop by 1980. Seen in this light, we may recognize that heavy metal had a run of twenty years from 1970-1990, and hip hop an unprecedented run of over thirty years.

Have we reached that moment when hip hop (finally) recedes into history, after 30 years?

Of course, the end of the era doesn't mean the end of the music. I mean, baroque music still "exists," people listen to it, and orchestras still perform it. Classical, romantic, dixieland, bop...Bach, Mozart, Beethovan, Tchaikovsky, Louis Armstrong, Coltrane, Parker, Davis... We still listen to Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley and The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix, the Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zep... We still listen to Chuck D and KRS-One and Run DMC and LL Cool J and Rakim and Fat Boys and Tupac and Biggie Smalls...

However, time has quite the dulling effect on the angry, rebellious anti-establishment edge of acid rock, heavy metal and hip hop, as the original acts age and became a part of the establishment. It can be tough to see artists from the 1960s who are now pushing into their 70s; it can be tough to see 1980s hair metal bands with grey hair; to see NWA rapper Ice Cube checking the kids' attitudes in family movies.

It was a great run, but it may be time to actually utter the words, "hip hop is dead, long live hip hop."

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Newman and the essence of artistic creativity





The first time I saw Barnett Newman's Onement 1 (1948), I voiced in abject perplexity, "what is it?" Little did I know that this was precisely the question Newman wanted me to ask, so he could answer, while stifling a chuckle, "it is...what it is."



Well, sort of. He might have said something more along the lines of wanting his viewers to "begin in the ‘chaos’ of feeling and sensation…to evoke out of this chaos ‘a memory of the emotion of an experienced moment of total reality,’” (Rosenberg, Harold. 1972. The De-definition of Art. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. p93).

Um, yeah... Basically, Newman was driving at the issue that can divide art camps when asking that fundamental question, "what is art?", the definitive answer to which is most elusive.

For Newman, painting a copy of something that exists is exactly that - copying something that exists. Copying does require degrees of skill, and the more realistic the copy, the more skill that's required. Wonderful...just not very creative.

To "create", opined Newman, was to, as it were, become like God, who created things that had not existed before they were created. Humans, made in "the image" of this creative Creator, were thus expected to be reflections of this creativeness and likewise not just create, but be creative (Newman drew heavily from his Jewish heritage as well as his education in philosophy).

As such, a vase of flowers or a bowl of fruit didn't excite Newman. Nor did he want a viewer to look at Onement and try and recognize something else by which to make sense of it. If someone was able to answer "it's a tree" or "it's the horizon at sundown", he'd have failed, for indeed his work would have had meaning only as it reflected something else, something he did not himself create; that piece would not have brought the viewer any closer to the creator of the piece, but instead to the creator of the horizon, which certainly wasn't Newman.

When I first saw Onement, it made me think "what in the world is Newman trying to say?" It became the beginning of a journey of discovery, an invitation to begin a dialog with the artist, through which I might become more acquainted and, yes, even intimate with his deepest ideas about art, life, his place in the world, and mine too.

It is what it is - a unique creation, from the mind of a unique artist, who had something to say. It got my attention. I was listening. I heard him.

Of course, "art", for such a short word, is a very big idea. And surely many will disagree with the notion that copying isn't "really art," which is fine. Defining art is a very personal experience - to share one's findings is itself a part of the motivation for artists to produce and engage. I explore not only the issue of defining art, but my definition of art, in my book The Essential Artist. (I welcome any comments on the manuscript while it's in the "read it for free online" vetting phase -  http://www.scribd.com/doc/33684335/The-Essential-Artist).

One of the primary lessons I learned from Onement 1 is simply this: appreciating artists and their art may require that we push past the surface - the "what it is" - to contemplate and approach the "what it means."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally published on Art + Culture, September 15, 2010


Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Lincoln Alexander leaves Queen's Park for the last time


Signing guest register. Photo courtesy Ann Green
I was able to get downtown last night to pay last respects to Lincoln Alexander and shoot this video of his motorcade pulling out and heading to Hamilton.

There's plenty written about his life, work and legacy all over the internet - he lived a life dedicated to not only making Canada a better place, but also to inspiring people to do the same. 

I'll just echo one quote of his that I particularly embrace:
"I'm proud of being black, but my role in Canada is to serve all the people. I'm a Canadian. Period."