Meet others at their word

I’ve been asked by a left-wing friend what I would do to improve progressive politics if I were to mysteriously become in charge of its direction, and I’ve been wondering on this a bit; now I think that I would radically change how left-wing ideas are expressed. It is my sincerely held belief that people disagree with much of left-wing politics because they are not clearly taught, and it is most assuredly a self-generated problem for them, at least from my moderate, centrist perspective.

A lot of left-wing social ideas are so poorly expressed that they are incomprehensible to most. Arising out of and replicating within academia and circles often adjacent to it, left-wing ideas are interpreted and described with cold, clinical terms that borders on the scientific. It is not necessarily that the vocabulary is too inaccessible to most but rather that the ideas themselves are rarely dumbed down in a manner accessible to laymen, as must often be done in other disciplines. Physics and astronomy have a lot of prior art in this department which helps them bring their works to the masses, but highly progressive sociology, not so much.

Take, for instance, the discussion that always follows the point made by some that racism against white people exist. The usual argument made against it is that racism against white people does not exist, which dumbfounds almost everybody that hears it; is white people universally loved? Is there a metaphysical phenomenon that blocks people from ever garnering hatred against white people? Of course not! That white people can be hated is widely understood; no one has ever pretended that they cannot. Of course, the academic understanding is that racism is a more complex beast than most people think it is, with a strong systemic component that perpetuates racism even when the laws have been accommodated. Equipped with this understanding, it becomes visible that hatred of black people is in every way more dangerous and damaging than hatred of white people; the latter will not be as injured as the former when facing racism.

But this is not how people understand racism. That’s not how I think of racism most of the time. When someone brings up that racism against white people is possible or that it exists, they are rarely if ever expressing that they believe the inherited system of racism and its environmental consequences have been stacked against white people. The understanding of racism here is almost always the simple kind, the widely understood kind, the most definitive kind, which is the hatred of somebody else for their skin color. When someone brings up racism, that’s what I think they’re bringing up. If they start engaging with terms like systemic or likewise then I know they are talking of the more academic, the more political inclination for racism, but to most this dimension isn’t at the forefront of the discussion.

So, what to do then if facing this? Should the academic perspective of racism and the interplay of intersectionality be discussed and posited as a ground truth? Certainly not! Not everyone has the mental energy nor the need to know of this. Not everyone can even understand it. In fact, if you understand that their perspective of racism is the simple and straightforward kind, then you can reason with them on that perspective and in a manner that will not be confrontational to them. Under this understanding of racism, what they say is in fact true: there is racism against white people. You can hate people that are white and for their whiteness, and that alone means racism against white people is possible. You can establish this as the ground truth, which will be more conducive to agreement; their claim has been true if you’re willing to understand it within its context.

Then, are we to say that racism against white people and racism against persons of color are the same? Certainly not! Rather, explain to them that while it is possible to be racist against anybody, the perception of this racism and its impacts differ based on the recipient. The racism experienced by a white person will, for most of the time and within our western societies, be much less damaging, even if not in all cases, than the racism experienced by persons of color, which are almost always more profound, and reproduces more easily. It is not difficult to explain simply that much of our western societies have inherited a system that advantaged white people, and because of this, the consequences of racism against white people are lesser than the consequences of racism against persons of color.

This is a simple and yet mostly full way of expressing the systemic nature of racism in full concord with their understanding of racism, the global and primary understanding of racism. Why isn’t this taught, however? Why is it that it is difficult to express this and that most people that possess the systemic understanding cannot ever will to express that white people can experience racism? Is it that we want to conceal the reality of racism against white people? Certainly not! This is the perception of conspiracy theorists. Rather, there is a friction in the identity of racism that is not being surfaced here.

Racism carries an identity; not only is it a generator of identity (as we see it in the uppercase Black community in the United States) but it itself carries an identity that persons of color find a reflection in. A black person, an Asian person, and a native person will all share in the same stream of racism even if differently positioned; a white person, on the other hand, will have an experience of racism so dissimilar and so distant of the rest that sympathy becomes difficult even though they can very well be in the same stream. In this sense, all of the former can identify with standing in the harsher waters, but they will find it hard when it comes to the white people standing in the shallower waters.

Therefore, it becomes natural that a bitter taste arises when someone that suffers less from racism begins to describe their own experience with it, often trying to base it on the same ground of severity and importance as the racism of others. This identity is not shared, even if the racism can truly exist, and often does. So, are we to say that because it is natural, it is good? Certainly not! For that we feel may appear justified but not useful; the racism experienced by the white person is real and warrants its own time and space, and one could say is understudied, and therefore is legitimate in every way. It shares little with others’ racism, but is nonetheless experienced and must be treated.

Does this mean we must set these instances aside, ignoring them so as not to distract from the vital work of dismantling systemic inequality? Certainly not! It is a fair objection from activists that time, funding, and political capital are finite resources; a movement must naturally prioritize the deepest, most widespread, and historically entrenched harms. However, while material resources are limited, empathy and moral consistency are not. The struggle against prejudice is never a zero-sum game of compassion. Acknowledging and validating the genuine interpersonal racism a white person might face does not drain the treasury of social justice. Rather, helping a friend in their own experience of prejudice is an act of enlistment into the broader struggle. It brings new hands into the fold to help tear down larger, systemic forms of evil. Denying a helping hand to someone who truly suffers from evildoing, simply because their waters are shallower, is a treason to brotherhood that ultimately weakens the entire coalition.