White people believe that they face the worst racism

…according to a study in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science.

The study, called ‘Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing‘, by Michael Norton and Samuel Sommers, suggests that white Americans surveyed think that they are now more widely discriminated against than black people, and that this supposed ‘anti-white bias’ is a bigger societal problem than the real anti-black bias. (This is an American-based study, and I think the problem is probably more prominent there, but since I only know the UK, and I see a similar trend happening over here, I will be using UK-based examples.)

After all of the wrongdoings of the past, governments are now at least trying to make society more equal for everyone, but the damage that has been done has penetrated society too deeply to disappear overnight. Ideas that black people and indeed people of other ethnicities are in some way inferior are ingrained in the collective consciousness, to the extent that when their position in society begins to improve, white people have started to cry ‘racism!’ Are we really selfish and shortsighted enough to convince ourselves that all along, all they were complaining about was the fact that white people had a more privileged position in society? Is history no longer taught in schools?

Many of my black friends have talked to me about the racism they experience in daily life, whether it’s a remark they have overheard from someone in the street, or discrimination by the authorities. A large proportion of my black friends have been subject to at least one stop and search by the police. As far as I know, none of my white friends have. Figures published in 2010 indicated that black people were seven times more likely to be stopped than white people.

These stops and searches under Section 44 were last January ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights for their arbitrary and widespread usage, as well as their disproportionate targeting of blacks and Asians. Now are we going to label this as racism against white people? Of course not, because it is utterly transparent that this was a case of inequality. So how can the same principle of removing inequality apply in other situations and be called ‘anti-white bias’?

This is how I see it. Most white people don’t even know they are white until they are in a room full of black people. They don’t have to; society holds them in a more privileged position by default, and in the past it was a rare occasion that a white person would find themselves in such a situation. Now, however, it is becoming more common.

Having used this example already, I will continue with it. The stop and search issue can be held at arms length and viewed relatively objectively by white people as inequality that needs to be extinguished. Why? Because it just doesn’t happen to white people. But when the situation for non-Caucasians starts to improve in other, less subtle ways, why is the reaction turned on its head?

I have seen this time and time again in previous jobs; the anecdote of the poor white person who lost out on a job opportunity to the black person who ‘wasn’t even as good at the job’. ‘Political correctness gone mad’, they say. Whenever I hear this it makes me cringe. Yes, there are guidelines to say that workforces (dependent on who applies) need to be representative of the general population, but why do I find it hard to believe that a less skilled person would be favoured over a more skilled person? From a productivity point of view, it doesn’t make sense for a company to employ an inferior applicant. Surely it’s more likely to be the case that the two people are equally skilled, but the white person doesn’t know how to react because it’s an unfamiliar situation they find themselves in, but in the name of improving standards of equality it has to happen. I suspect that if the job was given to another white person, then sure, the other candidate would be annoyed, and would probably make some digs about capability, but as soon as preference is given to a black person, the problem becomes about skin colour. It’s an easy target.

To cite another article:

a co-author of the study called the results “surprising.” That’s putting it mildly. But maybe we’ve missed the way white Americans have been systemically deprived of access and opportunities. Maybe we’ve overlooked all the times whites have been targeted by implicit and explicit race-baiting attacks, whether they’re playing professional sports or seeking elected office. Maybe we didn’t get the memo on the way the legacy of discrimination against white Americans continues to manifest itself in worse outcomes in income, home ownership, health and employment for them, the way white people are told they’re “objectively” ugly, and the disgust so many Americans felt the last time a white person ran for president.

Now imagine all this actually happening to a white person. Quite simply; it would not happen. The privileged position we hold is so blinkered to reality that it’s only when someone uses analogy like that displayed above that we realise it’s really not so bad after all. Yet some people will continue to complain. Please open your eyes. Try shutting up, listening and learning something. Racism is still a part of the daily life of non-white people, manifesting itself in all aspects of their lives.

So if you are a white person and you have read all this and disagree: Think you know racism? Think again.

Advertisements

41 responses to “White people believe that they face the worst racism

  1. I am not disagreeing that there is racism in the world that needs to be obliterated, but you will never erase the inequality with more inequality.

    What the author fails to address is how those of us who are NOT racist are treated when we are the only odd one out in the room – no matter what race you are. I can speak from my own experiences, that the racism flows from those who claim to be the oppressed far more venomously – reaction or not, its still wrong.

    I got lucky, I was born looking mighty white – I realize that, appreciate it, and try my damnedest to make sure that no one feels excluded or discriminated against in the work place or in my personal life. Your unique skin tone, ethnic heritage and culture is in fact more fascinating to me than you probably will enjoy. (I have been called nosey more than once – and made foolish mistakes in my desire to be inclusive.)

    It might surprise you to know that I too – the white girl – have been the victim of racism and religious intolerance. It’s not fun, it’s not funny, and it’s not something I would tolerate in myself, my children or those I choose to associate with – even against those whose intolerance is lacking. It only adds fuel to their fire, as hate begets hate.

    If we all would just learn to accept that everyone is different – skin tone similarities or not, and that everyone (child, woman, man ) is deserving of respect, the world would be a better place.

    • Hello there, Eden.

      Firstly, as far as I’m aware, nowhere in the article is it claimed that inequality can be erased with more inequality or whatsoever, the point that has been made is that white people thinking they are discriminated against more than black people are is flawed. As far as I’m concerned the author has demonstrated that the supposed evils of affirmative action, as it were, do not constitute anything that offers any evidence to support the perception that has been reported as being prevalent in the original, peer-reviewed study as having any merit.
      That is all there is to it.

      There also is the fact that altering the status quo where there is inequality to even things up is NOT by itself inequality, per se.

      To sum up, the question is “White people who responded to a survey usually thought that they were facing more racism, is this perception justified by evidence?” The answer is no, so that is the end of that.

      Secondly, the author makes no claims about “reverse” racism not existing so I don’t know why you even brought it up, or think that it is relevant to the issue being discussed here. When there was a clear media example of reverse racism in action which involved a Channel programme called ‘The Event: How Racist Are You” which insinuated that all white people were racist, the author spoke out elsewhere against it and pointed out that Jane Elliot’s exercise, which was featured in the event did not lead to that conclusion logically, what you’ve written appropos this is a non-sequitur at best and an attempt at poisoning the well at worst.

      Thirdly, ironically speaking, your assertion that racism flows from people who claim to be oppressed would lead to an erroneous conclusion, in this case, it would insinuate that whites are generally venomously racist (which is manifestly rubbish) because they have claimed to be the oppressed when responding to the survey (again, please read the study if you can). Again you end up with a non-sequitur or something that renders what you just stated absurd.

      Next, coming to my unique skin tone et cetera, I just want to confirm that you aren’t getting confused about who is who here, since I didn’t write this article, firstly, and secondly, the author is one of four on this blog and thirdly, she is white. Sure, discrimination of any kind, driven by bigotry motivated by everything ranging from religion to race hurts, and I can sympathise with any discrimination or bigotry you might have been on the receiving end of, but again, none of this justifies the perception of the survey respondents that they somehow were facing racism that was worse than that faced by Black people in America, not one single bit.

      As far as I’m aware, the author was using her personal experiences to make a point; that people tend to perceive racism where diversity is involved even if there are no evidentially supported reasons to do so, which renders such perceptions irrational, which basically is in accordance with rigorous data from the study she has referenced. She was also making the point that people in her experience have been bringing up bigotry regarding things like race which are by no means likely to be defining criteria in the competition for jobs, and I think it is a very pertinent point.

      So, what was the fuss about, again?

      To sum all of that up; sure, racism need not always be in one direction, it doesn’t become less of a problem if it is one direction instead of the other, but at the end of the day, the perceptions that people had and offered in the study are immensely flawed and don’t stack up against empirical evidence, and that is the end of that.

      Finally, diversity shouldn’t be a cause for discrimination in an ideal world, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. .

      Cheers.
      Ankur ‘Exploreable’ Chakravarthy.

    • Spot on, very utopian. . But unfortunately i think the whole equality thing is a long way off in this animal kingdom.

      • Well yes, it may be a long way off, but we’re basically left with just two options, either accept discrimination, which I find unacceptable, or keep striving for equality. There certainly is more equality today than there was in the past, and I hold efforts to keep pushing for more and more equality responsible.

  2. “Most white people don’t even know they are white until they are in a room full of black people.”

    I just mentioned this in a conversation this morning when trying to describe privilege to a friend. Thank you for the article—we need more like this.

  3. Great. Another person saying I am wrong.

  4. Pingback: Via Pharyngula “While we’re talking about advocating equality…” « The Eternal Bookshelf

  5. I think the key phrase in the findings of the study is “zero-sum game”. Seeing racial discrimination as zero-sum – unchanging in “size”, only changing in “distribution” – is a hugely flawed view, if one stops to think about it even for a moment. It’s like believing that friendship or civility only exist in this world in certain amounts, and if you get more, I get less. Yet both everyday observations and rigorous research confirm that friendly and cooperative communication patterns spread and grow stronger in human and other mammal groups (feed themselves, so to speak), just as unfriendly and aggressive communication patterns also can spread and strengthen. Very few – if any – psycho-socio-cultural phenomena are zero-sum. Human relationships, be they between individuals or groups, are emphatically not zero-sum.

  6. How is referring to white/Caucasian people as “normal” supposed to promote equallity??? (in the picture near the top)

    • As far as I can tell it was a humorous attempt at conveying the nature of hidden racism by the author, where people may pretend to treat all races as equal but still hold delusions of racial superiority. To answer your question for sure you need to wait for the author to do so, I’m not a mind reader, y’know.

      Cheers,
      Exploreable.

  7. Great blog. Not here to argue with the author nor any of the above comments, firstly, because Ankur’s intellect far outweighs my own, secondly, because I do not disagree with any of the above statements. However, I urge you all to look at South Africa as a case study, and then determine whether one ethnic group is/can/cannot be discriminated against more than black people are…

  8. To the author:

    You have 0 proof that reverse discrimination DOESN’T exist. I have proof that it does. You want proof? Come visit Rhode Island, where companies are hiring nothing but Hispanics. There are lots and lots of companies here that will not hire a white person. I know this first hand as a job seeker. Affirmative Action, quotas, bilingual favoritism, and tax breaks keep Hispanics working. Whites get the short end of the stick. It isn’t hard to see if you get out and travel some.

    I completely disagree with this article. It’s it’s baseless sympathizing.

    • Empirical rigour fail and reading comprehension fail much? It is always more than a tad irritating when people fail to read what has been written properly and then go spouting off tangentially at a strawman. The short of it being this; Nobody has claimed that reverse discrimination does not exist, and therefore the rest of your reply is against a strawman and is akin to pissing in the wind. Secondly, “proof” is only used as a term in formal axiomatic systems, insofar questions of verifiable hypotheses are concerned, the term used is evidential support.

      Oh, and next, the plural of anecdote is not data (and that means first-hand experience is useless insofar as discerning trends is concerned) have you got any empirical evidence that companies exclusively hire on the basis of race? Juliet’s already offered sound economic reasons for not hiring sub-par employees, regardless of race, and not only does your evidence have to account for that, you must also demonstrate conclusively that this applies to the whole of the USA and not just Rhode Island. Of course, I have no reason to take your word about Rhode Island companies at face value, since you have offered no evidence to indicate that they choose exclusively non-white employees for the reason that they are non-white. “Get out and travel some”, by the way is the most laughable thing you could’ve told the author, too, not least because it is i) an attempt at poisoning the well and a non-sequitur , ii) a glib ad-hominem, iii) AFAIK, the author has gotten out and traveled “some”, even a lot, actually.

      Finally, what part of the fact that the article talks about flawed perceptions of the amount of reverse racism in whites and does not,again, assert that there is no reverse discrimination at all do you not understand?

      And oh, your last comment is a non-sequitur, in rigorous discourse, claiming to disagree with something based on irrational arguments against a strawman automatically renders any conclusions reached on the basis thereof flawed, and the assertion thereof as the truth absurd. The only reason your utterly irrational bilge was even approved during moderation was to publicly demonstrate why exactly it is bilge.

      Next time, before you attempt to go against empirical evidence with dodgy reasoning and logical fallacies, I suggest you exercise due diligence to spare others the trouble of having to point out to you what exactly is wrong with your arguments.

      • My only comment on this post would be….Maybeee you should use more common words to describe your views if you are going to bash someones reading comprehension. Just because a person has a less developed vocabulary doesn’t mean they can’t form an opinion. It also seems like you do this to inflate your statements weight when it’s really just another view on the subject. (<—opinion no evidence needed)

      • Well, Juliet’s post is certainly written in English anybody who speaks the language can understand. While my personal writing style is often perceived to be a bit verbose and tedious I wasn’t really having a go at people for not getting my writing, I was merely bashing the inability of people to comprehend what had been lucidly described in the original post.

        Cheers.
        Ankur.

  9. A few observations – while the original article was from the UK it was a survey given to 400 Americans – half white half black. The survey asked for opinions of those surveyed. It does not provide enough information – at least in the link I saw – to truly evaluate it. Was the survey taken in an area or industry that is heavily unionized? A union can force an employer to maintain quotas – thereby hiring the less qualified individual a position over a more qualified person.

    While I am not disputing that racism/discrimination exists – “minorities” are able to have more freedoms in some areas than “majorities” – we’ve heard of NOW (National Organization of Women), the NAACP, but is there a NOM or and NAAWP? Also, one could argue that the very use of the term Colored to refer to blacks is in itself racist – as white is in fact a color – as are all other naturally occurring skin tones. Every human being is a person of color – but that is an aside or tangent for another article.

  10. Hi Matt,

    The second paragraph you have written is pretty much exactly why I wrote this article, and has basically proven my point.

    Why do you think these groups have been formed? As a response to patriarchal society. What you see from your privileged perspective as a man is ‘minorities’ having more freedoms in some areas, when actually they are just merely asking for equal freedoms in a society that has traditionally deprived them of this.

    Also I didn’t refer to blacks as ‘colored’…so I don’t know if that was aimed at me.

    And you’re right, it was a small study which could have gone into more detail, but it definitely picks up on some important issues to do with privilege.

    Juliet

  11. Wow pretty broad brush your painting with there! You don’t know racism unless you live in the southern region of the states.

    • [1] The survey involved a population being drawn from across the country, with respondents being randomly selected from a set of 2 million; clearly, the perception that affirmative action is a zero sum game was prevalent among the white respondents surveyed.

      [2] The authors further note that both black and white respondents had similar perceptions of what constituted racism in the 1950s, but only white respondents said reduced anti-black racism meant increased anti-white racism.

      Therefore, regardless of whether the southern states are more racist than northern ones or not; there is clearly a perception, characterising a nationwide sample, that somehow affirmative action and other measures for racial equality are examples of anti-white racism, and that this is worse than the anti-black racism they are meant to remedy.

      See http://i917.photobucket.com/albums/ad11/AnkyChakravarthy/ScienceStuff/Graph1.jpg for the graph that illustrates this.

      • I’ll begin by saying that ankur probably has never been cacausian. My empirical evidence is, well i looked at your picture. (little bit of a joke, not that funny) Having said this anything you say that would be considered an opinion is mute. I on the other hand am, and have encountered racism for this fact. When you really think about it what kind of true evidence can you really have if all situations aren’t taken into account. What if a city is predominately non caucasian? Does the ratio (in either direction) affect the feeling towards the minority? What stance did the populations parents have on equality? All of these things are social questions that can’t be answered with numbers because PEOPLE AREN’T NUMBERS. When you start putting quotas on the number of minorities hired you turn it into a numbers game. A real affirmative action would be to send more money toward the education of minorities since they are so disenfranchised. Basically all I’m saying is you can’t make a solid rule like this and expect it to work across the board, on every social class, in every type of job, and every population group. Let’s look past a color and focus on true merit for once, if you’re truly not racist it should be easy, and if you’re not then you should not be involved in the hiring process. Judge and critique grammar all you want

      • Hi Adam,

        I will begin by pointing out that I didn’t write the article, Juliet did, and she *is* Caucasian, (We’ve got 4 authors on the blog, so I would advise you to carefully check who wrote any particular article) so everything you say about “my” argument being moot on the basis of me not being Caucasian is moot, notwithstanding the fact that it is a fallacy you commit – one derived from an argument from authority. But of course, since I have the time and the inclination I will humour your thoughts… since the original study was carried out in the USA on a national basis (go on and read the paper if you can) I would say the national mean response accounts for demographic variation across the country.

        The paper Juliet’s article is based on, if you paid attention to it, would highlight that affirmative action is associated with the perception that it engenders racism against white people that is greater than the racism against black people it is designed to correct. As for the assertion that people cannot be reduced to numbers, with or without capitals, statistical research is a fundamental part of research in the humanities and sociology in particular, and some of the very features integral to society, such as democracy, do happen to reduce people to just that, numbers.

        As for the rest of your post about merit et cetera, I defer you to Juliet’s explanations of how, despite the absence of formal affirmative action here in the UK, accusations of racial bias may start creeping in whenever someone from an ethnic minority gets a job ahead of someone who is not, the whole article is not about what kinds of affirmative action are optimal/perfect/the best way forward, but about the perceptions thereof, which, especially in light of history, appear dodgy.

        Cheers.
        Ankur “I didn’t write this piece” Chakravarthy.

      • When I say people aren’t numbers I’m referring to their mind and personal beliefs. You can not equate the statements of such a small group to the entire population and at the same time reference this as evidence. In math if you have a single unknown variable then it is possible to extrapolate from the equation. When many variables are included no answer can be found without outside information, now if looked into every participants entire background this would be a solid study. Now, on your supposed factual statement the study somehow reveals the populations perception all I have to say is this is not true. Perception is just that, perception, something differing everyday and different among every sentient being. For this fact you can not get true answers only the sum of 200 perceptions. My beef is not with Juliet only the articles method of coming to such conclusions and your personal attacks stemming from a notion of authority, especially when citing (what I find to be) flawed evidence. No house is built without a strong base.
        Next…
        I know you didn’t write the article, and even with her being caucasian another variable could be introduced. Possibly she has never been in a place where she was a minority while also having racism put opon her. You on the other hand are not Caucasian, therefore would never be in a position similar to that. Your personal determination if such things exist can not be taken as evidence. (eyewitness testimony is used in the court of law)
        Finally, you state the U.K. doesnt have affirmative action therefore feelings of resentment towards minorities will creep in…this has already happened here and the law exists. I’m guessing if someone was told “he got the job because he’s more qualified” the person would understand, or at the very least not bring race into it…unless they were already racist in which case that would be the de facto reaction. By “reserving” positions to even thing out you aren’t really helping anybody except the person who recieves the job, while possibly tipping people towards racism based on their personal predisposition to the action. Even with all of this my real quams are with you sir.

      • When I say people aren’t numbers I’m referring to their mind and personal beliefs. You can not equate the statements of such a small group to the entire population and at the same time reference this as evidence. In math if you have a single unknown variable then it is possible to extrapolate from the equation. When many variables are included no answer can be found without outside information, now if looked into every participants entire background this would be a solid study.

        Trust you have never heard of randomisation? The study involved a randomisation of both a white demographic population and a black demographic population, picked from a nationwide sample, matched to age, educational level and gender, and yet a statistically significant result was pulled out for one group perceiving affirmative action as a zero sum game and the other group not. While there are some other things they did not control for by randomisation, such as
        political views and race related attitudes, they do concede that merits further attention, but this is somewhat compensated by the fact that this study only confirmed previously reported results.

        For this fact you can not get true answers only the sum of 200 perceptions. My beef is not with Juliet only the articles method of coming to such conclusions and your personal attacks stemming from a notion of authority, especially when citing (what I find to be) flawed evidence. No house is built without a strong base.

        You need a lesson in statistical significance then. In epidemiology, for instance, we do get good indicators of overall trends from small populations and extrapolate using 95% confidence intervals. By the way, you clearly haven’t read the paper properly, the sample size was twice as much as you make it out to be, a sum of 417, to be precise. Your assertions that the evidence is flawed is at best only partly right and at worst is egregious piffle.

        To quote from the paper,

        Both within each decade and across time, White respondents were
        more likely to see decreases in bias against Blacks as related
        to increases in bias against Whites—consistent with a zerosum
        view of racism among Whites—whereas Blacks were less
        likely to see the two as linked.

        As for your beef with the evidence, how about writing to Michael Norton, the corresponding author?
        http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=pub&facId=326229

        Unlike you I do not see the study as significantly flawed as you think it is, and this is where we differ.

        I know you didn’t write the article, and even with her being caucasian another variable could be introduced. Possibly she has never been in a place where she was a minority while also having racism put opon her. You on the other hand are not Caucasian, therefore would never be in a position similar to that. Your personal determination if such things exist can not be taken as evidence. (eyewitness testimony is used in the court of law)

        And this matters because? So misinterpretations of what Juliet actually wrote become permissible if the objections stem from anybody unlikely to have experienced racism as a minority? I, or the paper I have quoted, have not claimed that reverse discrimination may not exist, merely that it seems rather striking that a decrease in racism towards a minority should also be seen as a case of increase in racism against the majority. Do you agree that trends like this, where the correction of discrimination against a minority is automatically associated with discrimination against the majority, is a bit dubious?

        Finally, you state the U.K. doesnt have affirmative action therefore feelings of resentment towards minorities will creep in…this has already happened here and the law exists. I’m guessing if someone was told “he got the job because he’s more qualified” the person would understand, or at the very least not bring race into it…unless they were already racist in which case that would be the de facto reaction. By “reserving” positions to even thing out you aren’t really helping anybody except the person who recieves the job, while possibly tipping people towards racism based on their personal predisposition to the action. Even with all of this my real quams are with you sir.

        Spectacular fail. I didn’t say that feelings of resentment will creep in because the UK doesn’t have affirmative action, if you so much as bother to read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote. I wrote that automatic attribution of discrimination against whites as the reason anybody from a minority should get a job, as Juliet has personally experienced, would be as dubious as perceptions of racism being a zero-sum game.

        Is there anything else you would like explained to you in a manner you can manage to read without indulging yourself in misrepresentations of what has actually been said?

        Also, coming to your claims that affirmative action only serves to breed resentment, albeit based on previous predisposition to racism – the same could be said about any affirmative action regarding any basis of discrimination. Don’t have special policies for women getting jobs – it’ll only enhance misogynistic feelings. Don’t reserve places for the disenfranchised – it’ll only offend the privileged and promote their bigotry (and this has happened extensively in India, where I come from, with respect to caste based reservation). At the end of the day, governments that have sworn a commitment to equality and not satiating the desire for continued privileged status in those “displaced” by affirmative action are obliged to do things accordingly, and without having rather irrational justifications or positions being evoked by it to counter.

  12. First: happy birthday to Juliet today! Second: happy birthday to Ankur tomorrow! Third: I will try to remember to dig up the links that Ankur asked for over a year ago (blush).

  13. Regarding “Adam ward” – I would not lose any sleep over his comments. If someone complains about having been “discriminated” against by employers and those complaints (and their other comments) include numerous errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar, I interpret their problem simply as employers discriminating in favor of literacy and/or mindfulness. I guess we employers are bastards, then – also I chose to employ a non-white person whose written English is very good, instead of a white person whose written English is only mediocre. So sue me… *yawn*

  14. Stumbled across an old thread, but as a man who grew up in Fayetteville, N.C. and has spent 20+ years in our armed forces, I can tell you that I have come to know some extremely talented people of all colors and some unsavory people of all colors. If I walk past a group of black teenagers on my way into a 7-eleven, I’m not thinking they’re inferior to me…I’m just wondering if they’re going to rob, carjack, or stab me.

    • Why do you think they have such problems with crime? Surely being downtrodden by the privileged in society has to do something with it? People need incentives to be drawn to crime, and I don’t see why upwardly socially mobile people would be drawn to it, and nor do I see why people would choose to be impoverished. Also don’t see what the relevance is to the widely maintained denial of privilege focused upon in the article. Of course people who keep being oppressed and denied social mobility are going to turn desperate. Of course, even then I’d go on to say that the American incarceration system is pretty much an industry and so it the judiciary; a classical example is the recent acquittal of George Zimmerman while a woman who defended herself by firing into the air was sentenced to incarceration; thankfully there was a retrial brought about by decent people choosing to speak out and draw attention to this.

      Indeed, disproportionate sentencing, the design of laws that target activity associated with Black and Latino people and sentencing for trivial offences and an extensive amount of racial profiling by police will result in a higher prison population – this isn’t an indicator of more criminal activity by black people more than it is an indicator of self-declared colour blind laws actually driving that meme through targeting racial minorities.

      Also, I checked out the organisation that you allude to in your email; suffice to say there is a litany of anti-semitic and anti-black statements to be checked out from the NAAWP; I see no reason to take your pronouncements that deny racism on your part without a truckload of salt, either; at the very least you convey a denial of privilege – indeed, anyone who organises a “White history month” holds a laughably asinine position – somewhat akin to some people’s idea of celebrating “Straight Pride”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s