Some more clarification on my views, and the last email message I sent you...
I know that you may well think I am "shifting" my positions from the first time we spoke, and so I wanted to address that a bit so as to not be misunderstood. After all, you often claim to be "ignorant," or "not to understand" white supremacy, or "not to be an expert," (which I think is a mere tactic of false modesty, since you also act, occasionally, as if you know everything about white folks and the system, as does Dr. Welsing, whose views and even specific verbiage you repeat almost verbatim), so I'm assuming your propensity for misunderstanding is high (actually I'm being deliberately ironic here...I don't think you misunderstand at all. I think you deliberately misrepresent). By clarifying this, however, it will be harder for you to misrepresent, since I will have written proof of what I have said to you.
Fact is, I have been consistent about my beliefs for nearly 20 years, in books, articles and interviews. Although my understanding of the issues has deepened in that time, my fundamental outlook is the same. I think the problem, and the reason you may think I have "shifted" positions (which is what I was told you said about me after the Seattle talk, to Eddie and others), is that you are so devoted to a particular use of words, and understanding of language, that you fail to see how others, who don't torture themselves over linguistics quite as much, might view the same concept differently. Although you may think words are equal to the elements of the periodic table--that they are, in other words precise, with defined and constant properties, and that "following the logic" to quote Neely Fuller will always lead one to only one conclusion when it comes to words and their meaning--this is completely counter to the entire field of linguistics, and flies in the face of common sense.
The simple fact is, when you offered your definition of white supremacy (which I only vaguely remembered until I listened to you give it to Eddie on the show yesterday, and which I still do not recall including the clause "deliberately seek to abuse and subjugate," when I was on your show), I agreed with it, because to me it is an accurate description of the systemic aspect of that thing. But like any term, words have multiple meanings. So, in a dictionary, for instance, you will often see words defined in multiple ways, with subpoints 1, 2, 3, etc. I interpreted your definition as the equivalent of "1." I did not assume that it was exclusive of any other meaning. So while I agree that white supremacy is a global system in which white people (or those classified as white under that system), subjugate and dominate non-white peoples, I do not assume that a) those white people are all "dedicated" to that subjugation as some kind of conscious act, or that b) one can only contribute to that system if one is so dedicated, or c) that white supremacy is not also something else--namely an ideology of superiority, which places (in the white mind) so-called whites above all non-whites/persons of color on the planet in terms of presumed intelligence, beauty, etc. After all, "isms" by definition are both system and ideology (as with capitalism, socialism, fascism, etc), and although the two typically correlate with one another and contribute to one another symbiotically, they also are different, in that one can believe something and not act on it, or, conversely, one can act in a way that furthers a system, even if one doesn't believe in the strictures of that system.
My point, in other words, is this:
People called white under white supremacy will all internalize various aspects of white supremacist thinking. This is so obvious as to be a virtual truism. Just as people raised to be consumers will internalize aspects of consumerist thinking, etc (as explained in the previous e-mail). But that does not mean a) that those same persons cannot also internalize counter-racist conditioning (thanks to parental upbringing, experiences throughout life, or because of intensive study), or b) that people who internalize various aspects of racism/white supremacy (and thereby, at some level can be referred to as racist/white supremacist), are therefore dedicated to the maintenance of the system, as defined above. I would contend that one can be conditioned to believe white supremacy (as an ideology), and internalize aspects of it, and yet because of counter-conditioning choose to fight that internalized ideology, and definitely to struggle against the system of white supremacy at the structural level. In other words, one is not controlled completely by one set of conditioned beliefs. We have moral agency and are not mere robots, unable to turn against that which we are taught, in various ways by the society. When I admit to my own racism/white supremacy, I am arguing that I have that as part of my internalized belief system. But I also have antiracism as part of my internalized belief system, and I am absolutely opposed to the maintenance of the system of white supremacy. If that last part means that, in your view, I am no longer admitting to being a white supremacist, so be it. This is because we are defining it somewhat differently. But contrary to the beliefs of some, words are not cut-and-dried, scientific things. Linguistics is not physics.
And so I think part of the problem is that I think whites can and do internalize the ideology of white supremacy but that we do not have to be, as a result of that fact, dedicated practitioners of the system of white supremacy. To believe otherwise is to believe that human beings are one dimensional, essentially controlled by what we are taught (but only ONE thing we are taught, racism, as opposed to other things we might also be taught, like antiracism). This view of human nature is illogical, unscientific and absurd, but you are welcome to it, if it makes you happy.
That said, and this is very important: just because one is not dedicated to the system, and even if one is opposed to that system, it is still true, as I have said many times before, that one can contribute to that system anyway. So I acknowledge that I have likely contributed to the problem many times, despite my best intentions. I have written about this, and spoken about it, and so this is no earth-shattering admission here, just honesty. Just as with capitalism, this would be true. What I mean by that is this: I am, for instance, anti-capitalist. I do not believe in capitalism, and view it as an inherently destructive system (also, as per Marimba Ani's brilliant analysis, a European one). Yet, as someone raised under capitalism, I have no doubt internalized certain capitalist norms and beliefs (which I try and check regularly), and I certainly contribute, whether deliberately or not, to capitalism (despite opposing it) every time I buy a product or service produced under capitalist economic relations. Having a mortgage under capitalism, having health care under capitalism, having a car note under capitalism, charging a fee for my services, under capitalism, selling books under capitalism...all of this contributes to the system indirectly. Until the system falls, there is little way around it, though a person under capitalism but who opposes that system can also choose to fight that system, by speaking out against it, minimizing the extent to which they engage in exploitative relationships (i.e., expropriating the labor power of others), and seeking to repair the damage to which one contributes, by taking various actions intended to undermine market relations in various aspects of life (helping to build up non-profit, alternative models of economic relationships, etc).
So, as with capitalism, the mere existence of white people, so called, under white supremacy, means that we will--until that system is eradicated--be implicated in the system. But our implication does not imply deliberate intent or desire, let alone, as you put it "dedication" to the subjugation of peoples of color/no-white peoples. It implies only this: that under a system of subjugation, to be a member of the dominant group in that configuration makes it essentially impossible NOT to be implicated at some level. If a white person takes a job, gets an education, gets a home, receives health care, ever has an interaction with law enforcement, etc., we will receive privileges in all of these things, and as such, are implicated, and thereby contribute in some way to the system. But this is not because we a) sought out those privileges--whether we did or didn't, we'll get them, or b) want the system that bestows those privileges to remain in place--we might of course, but we also might not, for reasons I have explained before (i.e., we might honestly believe, as I do, that white supremacy is a threat to all life on the planet, and therefore, the privileges it bestows are literally deadly in the long run, however beneficial they may be to whites in the short run).
So I admit to internalized racist beliefs. But I also insist (as per the simple recognition that human beings are multi-dimensional, and capable of holding seemingly contradictory thoughts in their brains at the same time, and trying to resolve those dualisms in a healthy way) that I have internalized anti- or counter-racist beliefs, due to upbringing, exposure to mentors, etc. Surely you cannot deny the ability of human beings to have contradictory beliefs in their minds at the same time, and to be able to choose which one they will act on. After all, your ideological mentor believes this when she says that whites are both a) committed above all else to white genetic survival, and yet b) also obsessed with tanning and, for men, sleeping with black women. These things are utterly contradictory, after all. Excess tanning risks skin cancer, and thus, threatens the so-called white genome directly, and interracial sex "risks" the production of non-white offspring: a risk that a person who was "dedicated" to white genetic survival, would not, presumably take. So if you are to accept the Cress theory, which it appears you do, you would have to acknowledge the very point I am making above: that one can have views about a subject, and even sometimes act in ways, that are not consistent. And that one ultimately makes choices about what to do in the face of these contradictions. I am merely suggesting that despite my conditioning (from media, schools, peers, and all the places from which it comes to us), I can make the conscious choice to go in a different direction. To deny this is to deny human agency, to presume some kind of biological essentialism that is utterly without logical or scientific foundation.
Anyway, in the end it really matters not at all what you, or Dr. Welsing, or the folks working the Code, or anyone else thinks of me or my work. As I have explained many times before, I do not fight white supremacy "for" black folks or other folks of color. To do that would be paternalistic. I think white supremacy limits my humanity even as it provides privileges. I think white supremacy places me in a box, whereby I am expected to oppress and relinquish human empathy, notions of communal brotherhood/sisterhood, etc., and I think white supremacy is a threat to all life on earth (because it is at the root of militarism, ecological destruction and resource exploitation, etc). In other words, I fight the system for myself, my children, and because I am trying to be a responsible human being in the world, in solidarity with others, as I would want them to be in solidarity with me. I do not like what racism/white supremacy has done to my thinking, or that of my children, who are only 7 and 5 (as with the story I told at the Seattle talk, about how the oldest, at 6, was already making assumptions that God must be white, even though she has never been told that, or anything like it, by me or my wife, both of whom believe such a thing to be ridiculous). I take that as a form of socially-imposed child abuse, that she has begun to internalize that. And as a caring father, naturally, it enrages me. That is why I fight it.
Now, you are free to think that a) I am just lying about my desire to see the system change, or b) I might mean well, but my actions are destructive, or c) I am actually receiving payments from some global non-melanated conspiracy of albino mutants, who seek to use me to confuse people of color with pretty words, or even d) that I am a space alien, sent to earth to destroy it. Whatever. But what you are not free to do (at least if you seek to present even a modicum of intellectual honesty and integrity) is misrepresent or only partially represent what I have said. Yet this is what you have repeatedly done. You can think my arguments are wrong, but to question someone's integrity or motivations requires evidence that a person doesn't really believe what they are saying, and you have no such evidence because none exists.
Tim Wise
Because I have this information…
18 years ago