White Identity Politics

When whiteness is in a state of peril, which it always seems to be these days since the election of Barack Obama, white Americans quickly reveal their obsessive white identity politics. As someone of African descent living in the United States, I observe and am on the receiving end of excessive white identity politics all the time. White identity politics can be seen through any superficial analysis of American history and politics, from racial slavery to the Southern Strategy. The rise of post-racial, colorblind government and social policy also reflects white identity politics because affirmative action and any policy or program that explicitly mentions race becomes “reverse discrimination” or “racist.” Thus, any attempts by people of color or white allies to address obvious racism in institutions becomes “reverse discrimination” if aimed at dismantling white supremacy or increasing representation of non-whites. Perhaps due to the increasingly browner face of the United States, whites seem to be in an ever-constant state of fear about their potential loss of power. The election of a black president is just the beginning of the last days for them. Pat Buchanan, infamous white racist and conservative commentator, has even published an entire book about the fall of white America, echoing several of the aforementioned sentiments. White identity politics can take one of the following several forms, all expressing disappointment or resistance to the browner future of America and criticism of white supremacy:

1. I have heard many whites express anger or prejudice about the existence of all-black or people of color-focused networks and institutions, such as BET, which is no longer even black-owned. Apparently the existence of a network with mostly black television shows is “reverse discrimination”  even though ‘mainstream’ networks have disproportionately white shows, commercials, and usually pretend people of color don’t exist (except as stereotypes). The fact that BET is no longer black-owned (damn you, Robert Johnson) is usually never acknowledged by them is also troubling, because it’s part of a broader system of white economic control of channels of black culture in the US. Regardless, it’s racist and anti-white that blacks can have their own organizations, television shows, and clubs but white people can’t, even though whites obviously still have their own very exclusive organizations, clubs, professions, and define mainstream to mean normative white standards.

2. As an extension of the previous point, all-black or civil rights-oriented groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and redistributive policies directed at reversing white supremacy are also attacked by white identity politics aficionados. I cannot count how many times I’ve heard whites express anger at the very existence of organizations centered around the advancement of blacks. They also claim nobody is doing that for whites, and if they tried they would be called racist. Astonishing ignorance aside, everything in this society has been geared toward white advancement. If whites want their own racial uplift and anti-racist organizations, they should try being enslaved for centuries and denied citizenship and inclusion for another century through Jim and Jane Crow. If and when they do that, I will be more supportive of a National Association for the Advancement of White People, a moniker adopted by several white nationalist groups in the US. White resistance and discomfort attached to the very idea of organizations like the NAACP are often masked through humor, including inane jokes or finding acceptable the use of the term ‘colored people’ for contemporary African-Americans. No, I’m sorry white people, you cannot call me a colored. The NAACP was founded in 1909, an era where Negro and colored were the vocabulary, not black. Nevertheless, white identity politics asserts itself without any grounding in fact or historical context. 

Likewise, affirmative action is another charged issue for white identity politics, largely because it challenges their entitlement and privilege. Whites assume the reason for their rejection from college or some occupation is because of their race because it allows them to continue thinking they face discrimination in favor of inferior, less trained people of color. In addition to criticism of affirmative action that takes race and gender into consideration within a holistic admission policy at several institutions, white identity politics can and will appear in for funding or scholarships to attend college. Whites may argue that the reason they’re in severe debt because of college is their whiteness and, falsely assuming of course, that people of color have it so easy because college is somehow affordable because some scholarship programs are aimed only at them. Instead of directing their anger at universities and the government for jacking up the price of education and not funding higher education for all people, people of color provide a useful scapegoat for misdirected white identity politics. It also allows white America to live in a black hole where their racial privilege is sucked and the myth of meritocracy can thrive.

3. The recent 2012 presidential election provides another useful analysis of white identity politics in national mainstream political discourse. Usually seen with the right and Tea Party GOP, white identity politics is often expressed through accusations of black favoritism from Obama, as if Obama really is a black nationalist socialist Muslim born in Indonesia or Kenya. His entire presidency has faced these racist assaults and criticism from the white conservatives as well as some Democrats. Indeed, Geraldine Ferraro during the 2008 election claimed that the only reason Obama won is because he’s a black male, another example of the articulation of white identity politics emanating from a white woman! So black males have all the best perks of life in American society while white men and women don’t! White identity politics also surfaced during the Tea Party’s rise and their racist anti-affirmative action, anti-Obama rhetoric. Obama is a Muslim threat to the white Christian US and a socialist, the two worst things one could ever be. If Obama was not a black man with a “funny name” he would never face any of this birther nonsense. Furthermore, McCain was the candidate not born in the continental US, but the US unofficial colony of the Panama Canal Zone! 

Anyway, Romney et al. have used white identity politics and white racial resentment consistently throughout the campaign. From telling an NAACP audience to vote for Obama if they want free stuff (welfare queen stereotype) to the claims his life would be easier if he were Latino, the Southern Strategy and the exploitation of white racial resentment and identity politics is interwoven throughout the Republican Party and the predominantly white right-wing. Black elected officials like Obama are secretly anti-white and only looking out for blacks (although Obama has not done a single thing for African-Americans, but has given some concessions to the mainstream gay marriage movement) while white America suffers from racist affirmative action policies and savage blacks eager for welfare handouts run amok committing crimes. Clearly, white identity politics and its relevance to the far-right and center-right exemplifies the convergence of white identity politics within the broad neoliberal agenda of both dominant parties. Consequently, several so-called liberals and Democrats often espouse white identity politics in some form, not just Geraldine Ferraro.

As we have seen in examples from popular culture, affirmative action, racial justice organizations, and politics, white identity politics rears its ugly head and commitment to white supremacist institutions everywhere. This is not to say ALL whites in the US ascribe to it, but as a symptom of their white privilege, they are often unaware of it in the ways they are of identity politics coming from women, queer, and people of color. Indeed, this post was inspired by conversations with numerous white Americans and writings from them that are so critical of “identity politics,” which is explicitly racial or along gender lines, rather than recognizing the pervasive negative impact of white identity politics. As a function of their white privilege, white identity politics’ nefarious influence is seemingly rendered invisible, and critics of identity politics can continue to neglect their own privileges. Once again, it’s baffling to me how “identity politics” from women and people of color spaces can be rendered “toxic” to social justice and activism when white identity politics is the main reason we’re engaged in the above in the first place. 

To be fair, one does not have to be white to mouth the talking points of white identity politics. Based on personal experience alone, several Asian-American and African-American acquaintances have expressed the same views, but its only with white Americans has it reached highly offensive tones. To them, articulating their white identity politics can be couched in colorblind terms that still perpetuates white supremacy by rejecting the experiences of others, attempting to define others’ experience, rejecting criticism of Eurocentric academia or even writing off racial injustice’s detrimental effects on the lives of people of color communities. Perhaps this racist anti-anti-racist nonsense will die one day, but likely not soon enough.