Ijeoma Oluo’s So You Want to Talk About Race
Part 2

Ijeoma Oluo

2,824 words

Part 2 of 3 (Part 1 here, Part 3 here)

What is racism?

This chapter, about the big banana of all devil words, also starts with a fast pace:

It was an argument with a coworker that started where many arguments with coworkers start nowadays, on the Internet. This coworker had posted a meme about how poor people should be given drug tests if they want to get welfare benefits. You know the kind of post I’m talking about, one that sends a message like “If I need a drug test to get a hardworking job, you should have one to get the free stuff my hardworking tax dollars are paying for.”

I’ve seen these memes countless times and they are never anything less than a gut punch to me. I pointed out that as someone who had grown up on welfare and was subjected to this attitude her entire childhood, this sort of stigmatization really hurts poor people who are just trying to survive. Poor people shouldn’t have to prove how much they deserve to have a roof over their heads and feed their children.

The discussion only got more heated from there, because the co-worker stood her ground. (I don’t remember there being any further clarification on why anyone is owed tax-funded handouts with no questions asked, or in particular why those who can afford dope deserve to keep sucking on the government tit, but maybe I blinked.) Later, Ijeoma discusses the conversation with a friend, who argues that this wasn’t racism. Apparently he’d forgotten the Prime Directive — uh oh!

Then — you knew it would come up sooner or later:

The most common definitions of racism (in my own summation) are as follows: (1) Racism is any prejudice against someone because of their race. Or (2) Racism is any prejudice against someone because of their race, when those views are reinforced by systems of power. . . . For the purposes of this book, I’m going to use the second definition of racism: a prejudice against someone based on race, when those prejudices are reinforced by systems of power.

Item 1 is similar to the usual dictionary definition — although it’s typically used one-sidedly as a moral bludgeon, or at least the tired, old devil word is ostensibly an objective standard. On the other hand, item 2 is the Trotsky Tautology, increasingly common in Leftist academia because it was designed to stigmatize whites exclusively. (Of course, right?) It’s missing a third definition, the most accurate yet: a “racist” is someone winning an argument with a liberal. I note that the term “racism” occurs 166 times in the book, “racist” 98 times, and “racists” nine times. The author attempts to justify the special pleading, including with this:

Over four hundred years of systemic oppression have set large groups of racial minorities at a distinct power disadvantage. If I call a white person a cracker, the worst I can do is ruin their day. If a white person thinks I’m a nigger, the worst they can do is get me fired, arrested, or even killed in a system that thinks the same — and has the resources to act on it.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

Oh, Ijeoma! Three sentences and so much baloney! How do I respond? Where to begin? First of all, back in the real world, the United States’ illegitimate figurehead, the people pulling Bidet’s strings, and other key government figures routinely express open hostility toward whites. Population replacement migration is one of their top agenda items, which they’ve been carrying out for decades against our will. The mainstream media misses no opportunity to slag us off. The System really loves us, now doesn’t it? The precious minorities are hardly at a power disadvantage when the corrupt ruling class coddles and panders to them, using the darlings as a political counterweight against real Americans. When a nation’s so-called elites are presently at war with the nation’s founding population, then what did or didn’t happen four centuries ago is irrelevant — but nice try with that line.

Now let’s address the rest of the baloney. Although I’m white, I have no ability to get the author fired. (Kanye West is the only major black cancel culture target thus far. Although blacks routinely mouth off about whites until the cows come home, it’s hazardous to forget who’s really at the top of the pecking order.) Moreover, only policemen and district attorneys can get her arrested, and obviously not all of them are white. Finally, nobody has the right to murder someone else with impunity. Still, for what it’s worth, although the deaths of black criminals have been splashed across the headlines in recent times, igniting cross-country riots, there is far less media coverage over racially-motivated black-on-white crimes. That’s because presstitutes magnify or downplay cases based on their personal biases.

The author states that the goal isn’t about changing individual attitudes, but rather “to fight the systemic oppression that is harming the lives of millions of people of color.” (Consider it a major point; the term “systemic” occurs 40 times in the text.) Some examples follow that instruct on how to remedy this condition, such as this:

If you hear someone at the water cooler say, “black people are always late,” you can definitely say, “Hey, that’s racist” but you can also add, “and it contributes to false beliefs about black workers that keeps them from even being interviewed for jobs, while white workers can be late or on time, but will always be judged individually with no risk of damaging job prospects for other white people seeking employment.”

Well, what if some of the unflattering attitudes about non-whites which allegedly lead to “systemic oppression” are the result of experience with them? So we must scold each other about noticing certain patterns, but non-whites are under no obligation to improve their behavior, or even acknowledge any problems they cause? Besides which so-called “prejudice” usually results from disparate groups judging each other by their own standards and finding shortcomings. Obviously that’s what happens when disparate groups with little in common are crowded together haphazardly in a multiracial society. Maybe that’s a bad idea!

Because I’m a complete monster, I propose a reciprocal arrangement. For example, whenever one black says, “I can’t wait for Whitey to give me my reparations,” another black can say, “Don’t be fooled by liberal politicians making empty promises yet again.” But to break the cycle of systemic Afro-dyspepsia, it’s better yet for the righteous soul brother to add, “That attitude gives whites the idea that we blacks are lazy and greedy and believe we’re owed something for nothing. Come on, you were never a slave. And when’s the last time you gave thanks for the hundreds of thousands of white Union soldiers who fought and died to free our distant ancestors?”

What if I talk about race incorrectly?

The author then describes an uncomfortable discussion about race in a long and meandering preamble. Not only did her mother commit a racial faux pas in a conversation with a black co-worker, the conversation with her daughter recapping the incident was also a gaffe a minute. Much cringing follows, but they came to an understanding. Although her mother obviously had been going well above and beyond in service to black interests for quite some time, she got her consciousness raised further yet as a result of the talk. “My mom is now an outspoken advocate for racial equality in her union.” Surely that’s exactly what the union needed.

According to the author, “I’d love to not have to talk about race ever again,” but she does so out of necessity. After all, so many things are racially charged; for example:

When my son’s school only has parent-teacher conferences during school hours, they are making race an issue by ignoring the fact that black and Latinx parents are more likely to work the type of hourly jobs that would cause them to lose much-needed pay, or even risk losing their employment altogether, in order to stay involved in their child’s education.

My first thoughts were that this is a stunning instance of self-absorbed minoritist pearl-clutching. After all, there are plenty of whites who are hourly employees, and I was one for years. Moreover, salaried employees can’t always take off work whenever they want. Then I remembered the Prime Directive: “It is about race if a person of color thinks it is about race.” Very well, that settles it, then!

Following that, the author offers several tips for discussing race, to wit:

1. State your intentions.
2. Remember what your top priority in the conversation is, and don’t let your emotions override that.
3. Do your research.
4. Don’t make your anti-racism argument oppressive against other groups.
5. When you start to feel defensive, stop and ask yourself why.
6. Do not tone police.
7. If you are white, watch how many times you say “I” and “me.”
8. Ask yourself: Am I trying to be right, or am I trying to do better?
9. Do not force people of color into discussions of race.

Got all that? Excellent! Someone needs to send this chapter to David Duke and Jared Taylor. They talk about race a lot, but apparently they’re doing it all wrong.

The original includes commentary, typically a paragraph, for each item. The third item above, for example, recommends using Google to bone up on a topic, “but know that if you are a white person talking to a person of color — it is never their job to become your personal Google.” The sixth item, the one about tone policing, tersely states, “Do not require that people make their discussions on the racial oppression they face comfortable for you. See chapter 15 for more details.”

Walking on eggshells is obviously a very tricky business. She does warn the reader about that:

But even with all of your practice, and with the best of your intentions, there will be times where this all goes to shit. There will be times where you truly lose the plot and you aren’t sure what has happened, but you do know that you have really messed it up.

More tips are offered for when you blow the conversation:

1. Stop trying to jump back in when a conversation is beyond saving.
2. Apologize.
3. Don’t write your synopsis of this conversation as “the time you got yelled at.”
4. Don’t insist that people give you credit for your intentions.
5. Don’t beat yourself up.
6. Remember that it is worth the risk and commit to trying again.

These also come with additional commentary. The full explanation for item six is:

Okay, this conversation didn’t go well. In fact, it went horribly. And now you know that you have more to learn and more you have to do to get better at this. But you have to just keep trying, because the alternative is your complacency in the continued oppression of people of color.

You can buy Beau Albrecht’s Space Vixen Trek here.

Anyone taking up this quest to serve as an anti-racist crusader, of course, will become the equivalent of the uncle who just won’t shut up about politics at family gatherings. A worse problem is that in the present climate of anti-white pearl-clutching, any remark that someone else deems politically incorrect can launch a human resources inquisition, end a career, or incite a media feeding frenzy. Engaging in hazardous discussions of race — even the author acknowledges that they’ll be badly received sooner or later — is therefore an unacceptable risk. Even liberal lemmings and self-abnegating social justice warriors would be tiptoeing over a minefield.

More to the point, it’s not our job to build bridges to populations that won’t even appreciate the gesture. Neither is it the duty of whites to champion non-whites. (The effrontery here is all but unimaginable.) That won’t win liberals any brownie points, either. We should be looking out for our own people, not white-knighting for everyone else. Other races aren’t going out of their way to support us, so we’d better take care of our own.

If this weren’t enough preciousness, Chapter 17 is chock full of tips on how to stand up for non-whites and benefit them financially. I have a very short answer: no.

Why am I always being told to “check my privilege”?

Chapter 4 begins with the author and her brother experiencing a fairly lonely childhood, since they were outsiders growing up in suburban Seattle. Then, an e-mail group opens the way to a rich social life. It seems to me that people are happier among their own kind:

I was suddenly immersed into a world of black and brown artists, professors, musicians, and tech leaders. We would have hangouts where we’d eat vegan soup and sip fancy cocktails and talk about bold art and systemic oppression and political theory. We put together art showings and community conversations. We had amazing New Year’s Eve parties where hundreds of elaborately dressed people of color danced the night away, afros and locs swaying to the beat. It was a dream come true. Suddenly, Seattle didn’t seem like the gray city of repressed white comfort that it had previously been.

At one of their gatherings in the lily-white Capitol Hill neighborhood (which, I’ll add, later became the site of the short-lived CHAZ/CHOP/Tofudishu pimple on Seattle), a few soul brothers walked up from a nearby basketball court and asked to join. They were admitted to the party, albeit with some hesitation due to a hang-up about social class. The incident caused much consternation in the author:

But that one afternoon in the sun definitely brought about a disillusionment with myself and what type of black woman I thought I was, and caused me to question my individual work and change my focus to ensure that when I talk about black people, I’m talking, as best as I can while acknowledging the limitations of my own life experience, about all black people — of all classes, all education levels, all genders, all sexualities, and all abilities.

I have to hand it to the Leftists: They know what solidarity is all about. Then, a versatile anti-concept is briefly defined:

Privilege, in the social justice context, is an advantage or a set of advantages that you have that others do not.

These privileges are not due 100 percent to your efforts (although your hard work may indeed have helped), and the benefits of these privileges are disproportionately large or at least partially undeserved when compared to what the privilege is for. These advantages can often be ascribed to certain social groups: privilege based on race, physical ability, gender, class, etc. But these privileges can also lie in areas that you may have not considered, like sexuality, body type, and neurological differences.

She makes a thorough inventory of her own privileges, particularly during her college education. Then she states at length that this constitutes an unfair advantage over others who don’t have that degree. Fortunately, she doesn’t wallow in samokritika such as Robin DiAngelo:

When somebody asks you to “check your privilege” they are asking you to pause and consider how the advantages you’ve had in life are contributing to your opinions and actions, and how the lack of disadvantages in certain areas is keeping you from fully understanding the struggles others are facing and may in fact be contributing to those struggles.

That’s all well and good, but it’s still one of the dumbest catchphrases in the Leftist lexicon. As I’ve said before, social justice is a dick-measuring contest where the shortest one wins. That’s giving the anti-concept every bit of the dignity that it deserves.

What is intersectionality and why do I need it?

The next personal anecdote concerns a flame war that developed on Twitter, in which factors of race and sex were relevant to the discussion and at odds with each other — to make a very long story short. The author defines intersectionality as “the belief that our social justice movements must consider all of the intersections of identity, privilege, and oppression that people face in order to be just and effective . . .” I’ll further add that it’s a new twist on cultural Marxism that considers all the identity groups to which an individual belongs. This contrasts with certain political pursuits such as feminism, gay advocacy, and racial advocacy which, conceptually, focus on single factors. Anyway, that’s the short version. According to the author:

Anti-racism groups will often tend to prioritize the needs of straight men of color, feminist groups will tend to prioritize the needs of white women, LGBTQ groups will tend to prioritize the needs of white gay cisgender men, disability rights groups will tend to prioritize the needs of disabled white men. Imagine where this leaves a disabled Latinx trans woman on any group’s priority list.

As one might expect, the implementation gets complicated, though the author says it’s worth it. My take is that it’s preferable to focus on economic matters such as social class, since money is the universal solvent in this society. Life is a shit sandwich; the more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat.