White Privilege, White Progressives and the Audacity of Obama’s Definition of Hope

Bill Quigley

16 Jan 2008

White Privilege, White Progressives and the Audacity of
Obama's Definition of Hope

by Dr. Edward
Rhymes

"In the highest halls of the state and federal government
we have proven that a white woman can and does receive more opportunities than
Black men."

RhymesRoseanne In light of the
comments made by Hillary and Bill Clinton in the past week, Roseanne's bigoted diatribe and the "racism-laced" New
York Times op-ed of Gloria Steinem's, I felt it necessary to come out of my long
writing hibernation to speak to these concerns. It appears that when the stakes
are high and the psychic shades are opened, many so-called white feminists and
white female liberals run to the familiar confines of latent racism and white
privilege. Let me make myself perfectly clear: in this writing I will not put
forth an argument for or against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in regard to
the presidency, but rather I want to offer a counter to the erroneous
assertions made by the aforementioned players.

Darren Parker in his
article "White Female Liberals aka ‘Progressives'" touches on an
aspect of racism and white supremacy that is often overlooked: "The reality is that white women represent the second most
privileged category of human in the US. In spite of the reality of sexism no
category of man of color has the level of wealth, power, privilege, education,
or control as white women."

When Steinem writes something as asinine as Blacks
receiving the vote after the Civil War and women not receiving the franchise
until 1920 as some sort of indication that gender trumps race as the most
crippling and restricting factor in American society, it should be a powerful
eye-opener that white women, by and large, have not been our allies in the
struggle for racial justice. Steinem's ominous omission of Jim Crow is
deceptive and irresponsible given that even as recently as the 60's, Blacks
were being killed for trying to exercise their right to vote - prompting the
need of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of the mid-1960's. To date, I can't
recall one white woman being lynched for voting or trying to vote in America.

"White women represent the second most privileged category
of human in the US."

Steinem goes on to say
that if a woman ran for president with Obama's lack of RhymesBunchFemaleExecs qualifications, she
would not be taken seriously. In response to that I say: would Hillary be the
U.S. Senator from New York and a possible nominee for the Democratic Party's
nomination for president, if her husband wasn't Bill Clinton? The years of
experience as the first-lady that she touts, is a privilege that 42 other women
have had the opportunity to enjoy, none of which were the hue of Michelle
Obama.

Over the past year or
so the question has usually been framed as thus: Who would America elect first
for President, a woman or someone who is Black? This is a misleading question
and choice. The more direct question that we should be asking is: given a
choice, would America choose a white woman or a Black man? If we look at this
at the state and federal level, that question has been asked and overwhelmingly
been answered. Thirty-four white women have been elected or have served in the
U.S. Senate compared to 2 Black men since Reconstruction (Carol Mosley-Braun
was the first and only Black woman elected to the U.S. Senate in 1993) ---
presently, there are 16 white women serving in the U.S. Senate compared to one
lone Obama. Thirty white women have served as state governors compared to two
Black men since Reconstruction (the latest being Deval Patrick of
Massachusetts, elected in 2006). So in the highest halls of the state and
federal government we have proven that a white woman can and does receive more
opportunities than Black men to serve and to lead.

Additionally, since
the economy has now come into play in this presidential race, let us take a
look at the U.S. Census Bureau's Population Survey, 2005 Annual Social and
Economic Supplement. In it we see that white women ($32,683) outdistance Black
($31,732) and Hispanic ($26,921) men in annual earnings --- sadly Black and
Hispanic women are the most woefully at-risk making 29,145 and 24,255
respectively.

"Part of the Clinton legacy is a sinister capitulation to
the racist characterizations and misrepresentations leading up to welfare
reform and a less than lukewarm defense of affirmative action."

Hillary's allusion to
Dr. King's ability to inspire as compared to LBJ's ability to make the Civil
Rights Act a reality smacks of racism at its most pernicious level. The old
Blacks "sho can talk" but are short on ability stereotype is very evident in
this analogy. Once again, the acclaimed and much-heralded liberal Mrs. Clinton,
like Steinem, ignores the racial realities of American history; that politics
in America has been a game that almost has been exclusively reserved for whites
until recently, and proves that when push comes to shove and white power and
privilege is threatened, she is not above stoking the fires of racial
prejudice. It is also important to note that in invoking the MLK and LBJ comparison
she also resurrects the reality that after King's now famous speech in
opposition to the Vietnam conflict, he was referred to by LBJ from that moment
on as "that nigger preacher," - in other words, "how could he do this to me
when I've done so much for his people?" Sound or look familiar? This is further accented and buttressed by
former President Bill Clinton's reference to the 46 year-old, Harvard-educated,
elected-U.S. Senator Obama as a "kid" - coming dangerously close in tone and
temperament to the familiar racist designation of "boy." If the Clinton
campaign wants to draw a distinction between the record and experience of
Barack and Hillary, then that is a conversation that can and should take place.
However, that's not what I heard or felt in Bill Clinton's words. I heard the
arrogance of a man who believes because of Black America's love affair with him
(for reasons I don't understand) he has the right to say to Obama: "know your
place boy" or "wait your turn boy." It is a tone and attitude that I am all too
familiar with and the liberal label or the progressive tag does not make one
immune to it (and if the truth be told, the Clintons have always been far more
centrist than they ever were liberal or progressive). Furthermore, as I have
stated in other writings, during the economic boom in the Clinton years of the
90's, Black men were the only group who lost ground. And it also has to
be further recognized that part of the Clinton legacy is a sinister
capitulation to the racist characterizations and misrepresentations leading up
to welfare reform and a less than lukewarm defense of affirmative action.

RhymesWhiteWomanprof Even though the gains
enjoyed by white women were secured in large part by the struggles of the Civil
Rights movement, it is this allegiance to whiteness that when given a choice to
support their sisters and people of color (and their own self-interests as
well) by keeping affirmative action measures in place, they invariably choose
their sons, their husbands, their fathers and their brothers who have been
enjoying the benefits of centuries of good ole American written and unwritten
affirmative action measures. In 1996 when Proposition 209 came before the
people of California, 57% of White women voted in favor of it; in Washington
(1998) 51% of white women voted against affirmative action and in the recent
defeat of affirmative action programs in Michigan, 59 percent of white women
voted to approve Proposal 2 (82 percent of non-white
women voted against it).

"Americans want an easy route to change that pays
lip-service to the virtues of equality and justice without any serious
challenge of institutional and systemic racism or white privilege."

So in what
construction, or rather reconstruction, of reality by Steinem, Clinton and their
ilk are Black men wielding more power in this country than white women? Many white liberals and progressives have
allowed themselves to be convinced by the hyper-exposure of certain Black
figures, that a certain level of vigilance is no longer necessary when it comes
to racial justice and equality when practically every indicator (economic,
educational, health etc.) says otherwise; that the absence of fire-hoses, dogs,
lynchings and burning crosses also means the absence of racism and the
achievement of racial equality.

This brings us to the
Senator from Illinois. Shelby Steele, in his interview on PBS with Bill Moyers,
stated that to fit into the current and popular definition of Blackness, that
many Blacks live an existence of betrayal to their own desires, ambitions and
dreams while subordinating themselves to a group identity that is at its core
"grievance-driven." He went on to say that many Blacks manipulate and prey upon
"white guilt" or the perceived need of absolution by many Whites because of
America's racist history. Viewpoints such as Steele's have always been a
perplexing to me and I believe there is a reason why such viewpoints are out of
the mainstream of Black thought. It is not because we as Blacks have a herd
mentality nor is it that we, by-and-large, expect something for nothing, but
rather it is because it runs counter to the historical record, the facts, the
numbers and our own personal experiences.

"Obama's definition of hope is ‘cheap change.'"

Moreover, if there are
whites who are guilty of racism and bias; if there are whites who are guilty
of enjoying the benefits of white privilege without examining the damaging
consequences of that privilege, then I believe some level of guilt is
appropriate. The murderer who murders; the rapist who rapes; the embezzler who
embezzles should feel some level of guilt. Shouldn't I, for the woman I
disrespect or the man that I injure, feel some angst? By guilt I do not mean a
pit of despair and hopelessness; or that whites should be beholden to me as a
Black person in any way, but rather a guilt that spurs action and real personal
and societal transformation. Guilt, at its core, is just another word for
conscience. Dietrich Bonheoffer, Nazi holocaust victim, in his Christian
classic The Cost of Discipleship talks about and details the phenomenon
of "cheap grace." His central point was
that cheap grace represented forgiveness without requiring repentance (or a
change of heart and conduct); an enjoyment of the consolations of absolution
without restitution. I believe this is where we find ourselves today in the
struggle against racism and the quest for racial and social justice.

Americans, for the
most part, want an easy route to change or societal RhymesBetterLynching transformation in regard to
race and racism; a "cheap morality" if you will, that pays lip-service to the
virtues of equality and justice without any serious challenge of institutional
& systemic racism or white privilege. It is a "cheap activism" that says
"fight the power," but avoids self-examination and an honest accounting of
American society and history. I have never agreed with much Shelby Steele has
said, but I do agree with him when he says that, for many whites, Obama is
absolution. When his stance on the issues is closely examined, other than the
color of his skin, what real change from the status quo does Barack
offer?

Obama, to his
discredit, has helped to foster this cheap political and social grace scenario
with statements like Blacks are 90% of the way to equality; class was
more in play in Jena than race and the incompetence during Katrina was
colorblind. This, by the way, should silence all those who say that Obama
hasn't talked about race during this campaign because he has, and what he has
had to say is disheartening and has ingratiated himself to any and all who
believe that colorblindness equals equality. And that is the audacity of
Obama's definition of hope, it is "cheap change"; he offers to America societal
conversion without controversy. James Cone, noted theologian and activist, made
a profound statement that lends itself to this paradigm: "...if America could
understand itself as not being innocent, it might be able to play a more
creative role in the world today. And you see, America likes to think of itself
as innocent. And we are not." This is not about not letting whites off the
hook, but about unfinished business and working until we have given our "last
drop of devotion."

"Have we as Black
folk been so spiritually devastated that we are willing to treat the mere
mention of equality and justice as if they are the actual fulfillment of those
things?"

Currently we live in a society where white men with
prison records receive far more offers for jobs than Black men with identical
records, and are offered jobs just as often - if not more so - than Black men
who have never been arrested; where the income gap between black and white
families has widened in spite of the gains of the civil rights movement (a key
reason for the disparity is that incomes among black men have declined when
adjusted for inflation. They were offset only by gains among black women);
where mass incarceration of black men has decimated our communities. This is
not an us-against-them clarion call; nor should this serve as a basis for
hatred or animosity against any person or group of people. However, what I hope
it does accomplish is a demand within the Black community for more. Demanding
more of our politicians and elected officials; demanding more of white liberals
and progressives who say they believe in racial justice and equality.
Have we as Black folk been so spiritually devastated that we are willing to
treat the mere mention of equality and justice as if they are the actual
fulfillment of those things? That overtures, and only overtures, can
satiate a desire for real equity? We have, in times past, demanded far too
little and gotten exactly what we have asked for...far too little.

I know that I will be
accused by some of pessimism and divisiveness - especially in light of Obama's
declarations of hope - and yet it still amazes me how merely stating the
realities of Black folk in America elicits that same response from white folk
wherever they are on the political and ideological spectrum, which is: "just
get over it." The harsh reality is that no amount of "can't we all just get
along" rhetoric is going to change the fortunes and everyday circumstances of
the millions of Blacks in this country. So the questions still remain: do we as
Black people have the political and moral will to accomplish the task at-hand and
are white liberals and progressives truly committed to social and racial
justice? The information provided in this writing is readily available to any
and all who choose to seek it. So the issue is not my addressing of these
concerns, but rather why aren't more white liberals and progressives addressing
them? What Gloria Steinem, the Clinton campaign and, regrettably, Obama show us
is that until white privilege is addressed and eradicated, it will continue to
be the serpent in any and every Garden of Eden of feminist, liberal or
progressive creation.

Dr. Edward Rhymes, author of When Racism Is Law &
Prejudice Is Policy, is an internationally-recognized authority in the areas of
critical race theory and Black studies. Please view his website: Rhymes Reasons. He can be reached at [email protected].

Do you need and appreciate Black Agenda Report articles. Please click on the DONATE icon, and help us out, if you can.

More Stories