Exclusivity
I’ve heard it argued that hardly a case is ever made for instances of racism against “whites” by non-whites, including those ever-present situations of exclusivity such as a magazine devoted only to Asian interests, or “Black History Month”. People will say that if there was a “White Entertainment Television (WET)” or a “White History Month”, that there would be an outcry amongst American minorities. The thing that these people fail to recognize is that the “default” race, media focus, and historical context – amongst other things – is a “white” one.
The default impression of the “American” is unquestionably an American of European descent, but due to cultural hegemony and obscurity and the institution of race, this Euro-American becomes simply “white”. Say what you will about American diversity, but the majority of people in this country are still “white”, a disproportionate number of seats of power in public office and industry are held by Euro-Americans, and the most popular media icons are mostly – you guessed it – white.
So what about White History Month? Well, if such a thing were created, it’d only be as a blatant affront to Black History Month, because as I mentioned, the history of America has mostly been told with respect to and with a focus on the actions of Euro-Americans. The only reason there is a need for Black History Month – which I personally wish wasn’t the case – is that history is often been written at the exclusion of the non-white population in any situation, and not only have so-called “black people” been a minority in this country for its entire history, but a marginalized one at that. Text books give lip service to slavery, but often merely as a backdrop to the American Civil War, glossing over 400 years of atrocity to eventually pay high tribute to white military generals and Abraham Lincoln – who, mind you, was more keen on shipping all African-Americans back to Africa than dealing with the difficulties of Reconstruction.
It is not mentioned how the institution of slavery formed the very financial backbone of this country, nor how the wealth of many of the top 1% of individuals and the richest corporations were accumulated on top of a slavery money foundation. After slavery, history books do not pay much attention – if they mention it at all – to the atrocities that continued to take place against African-Americans, such as beatings and lynchings that went unpunished because of the mentality that while no longer slaves, they were still less than human and therefore entitled to less than human rights. Perhaps it is thought that impressionable little minds cannot digest the scope of the crimes committed against African-Americans, but in my opinion, that is the exact impression that they need of this country – i.e. an accurate one.
Anyway, without going much further into the exclusion of particularly “black” issues from mainstream written American history – and literature, and art, and invention, and more – the point is that American History is all too often “white history”. I should mention that the issues of “non-black” minorities get even less attention. Perhaps because their roles were on the whole less significant given their numbers, but mostly for the same reason that black history is relegated to a single month of coverage rather than interspersed throughout the continuum of American history as it should be, and as would eliminate the need for such a month. My focus on black history here is due mostly to the fact that the exclusion of other minorities from the American stage of history has left me with little to no knowledge about their roles. I blame the standardized American education system for this exclusion.
I will say, though, that the American Indians, in spite – or because of their reduced numbers and a need to preserve their history and culture – need as much as any non-white group to be adequately represented in American history. The true story of Columbus should be told. The Thanksgiving myth needs to be deconstructed, if not completely abolished. The plights that American Indians have faced and continue to face in the aftermath of their near physical and cultural annihilation and marginalization needs to be recognized and discussed with as much fervor as anything else.
But as for “white history month”, perhaps there should be such a thing. Not to pay even more attention to those figures who already dominate American history, but to observe a history of this phenomenon called “whiteness”. There are several progressive academic intiatives, all at the college level, to examine this – indeed “whiteness studies” – which I applaud and wish would gain some mainstream attention.
So enough about history. What about White Entertainment Television? I have to ask any person who argues this point what television they are watching. The main characters and the majority of cast members on every American sitcom, drama, and news show are Euro-Americans. WET, as it were, is every television station – except for the ones that obviously, you know, aren’t – and they are few. How much media coverage has Paris Hilton received, and for what? The woman has no talents to speak of, at least none that she advertises, unless we consider her sexual prowess. But I don’t know anything about that; I didn’t see the tape. She goes to jail – sort of – for an everyday crime, perhaps as much because of her illicit celebrity status as the crime itself and the country can’t stop talking about it for weeks. And in the aftermath, all eyes were on Paris as she declared that she was a changed woman, and the media outlets wait with bated breath to report on her next escapades.
Lindsay Lohan’s transition from a kid-friendly actress to a wanton drunk makes headlines. Anna Nicole Smith stayed in the spotlight even before she died – and for what – manipulating old men into including her in their wills? Brad and Angelina’s relationship joys and woes are given far greater attention than their humanitarian efforts in Africa. And which of the Olsen twins will die first from anorexia or drug addiction would seem to be quite newsworthy.
Also worth noting is that while the depravities of these white women seem to bring them greater attention and popularity, instances where non-white celebrities fall from grace are met with such venomous responses. Barry Bonds took steroids, which has become a bigger deal as he approaches the home run record of squeaky clean Hank Aaron. This is ironic since Hank himself received extreme scorn and even death threats as he approached Babe Ruth’s record. Michael Vick – who was overrated to begin with – is getting even more media attention than he deserves, but this time all negative. Paris Hilton goes to jail and she could make a few million “writing” a book about the experience. Meanwhile, Michael Vick allegedly has some dogs fighting one another – something that is disgraceful and rightfully condemned – but not something that should make him public enemy number one.
Now this is a strange phenomenon, because it almost seems as though these African-American celebrities are held to a higher standard than their white counterparts – strange because these standards are certainly not reflective of how minorities are often perceived in the public consciousness. One would think that where a “black man” lives up to society’s expectations that he be a criminal or a degenerate, he would be met with justified nods. But in truth, it is not that Michael Vick and Barry Bonds are held to some higher standard than Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan, it is that their celebrity was resented from the start – at least by some – and their indiscretions have finally given justification to tear them down. Perhaps hesitant to exalt African-American role models as it would conflict with their perceptions of African-Americans in general, these incidents have given racist parents an excuse to recommend wholesome white gentlemen like Peyton Manning or Steve Nash as their children’s new heroes. This, of course, is not to say that these two men aren’t well-deserving of admiration all else notwithstanding.
Going back to television – Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Dr. Meredith Grey, Tony Soprano, Gil Grissom – the leads of some of the most popular television shows – although it is never said, nor does it need to be said – are “white”. And the media starlets (although a word that rhymes with starlets may be more appropriate) are no different. In fact, it registers in the mind like a beacon whenever this is not the case, and it most often is not, unless it is a show with an all or mostly non-white cast.
I should give special mention to Tony Soprano, as he showcases something important – that where an Italian-American television family isn’t simply “white”, they are most likely in the mafia. And it is that element, and not any Italian heritage or culture that gives them such ample popularity on mainstream (i.e. “white”) television. That is to say, stereotypes appear to be good business.
White dominance of media attention is not mentioned because of what I said before about the default status of Americans and American interests being white as well. So, in light of all of this, what else would an explicitly “white television” station be, other than a racist thumb-at-the-nose at every channel that dares to show anything else? And for those of you who argue for “WET”, I again ask you what television you’ve been watching all this time, but also if it is really necessary to begrudge minorities one or two stations and a handful of programs?
Finally, moving into socioeconomics, the argument of non-white exclusivity as a form of racism is most vehement when it comes to Affirmative Action. It should be mentioned right from the start that as many “white” women have benefited from the program as minorities, but even glossing over that point, why is Affirmative Action not a form of reverse discrimination? Why is it okay to give someone a job at least in part because they are a minority, but apparently not justifiable to hire someone or grant certain privileges to someone because they are “white”? It is hard to even take these questions seriously, but let me address them first with a question of my own: What country do you people live in? In the United States of America, history (as I’ve discussed), politics, economics, indeed everything, favors “white people” – a term I continuously put into quotes due to its spurious status as a term of classification.
No white person ever need fear being pulled over by police simply for being white, or of police adopting a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality as they reach for their wallets. No white person has ever needed to be concerned about being denied a loan or housing in a certain neighborhood on the basis of their perceived race. White people – in all the places and situations that matter – are evaluated as all people should be – exclusively on the basis of their merits. This is one aspect of what is called “white privilege” or the “wages of whiteness”, but there is much more to be observed that unfortunately goes beyond the scope of this essay.
On the other hand, minorities face this kind of exclusion on a regular basis, and on a scale that is hardly balanced out by a few half-baked diversification initiatives or corporate hiring quotas. Employment applications and contracts often have an “at will employment” clause, which state that employment can be terminated at will by the employer for any reason. Now, for fear of a lawsuit, no company would explicitly state that they are firing someone on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. But nor do they have to. It is as simple as saying “it wasn’t a good fit” or “we decided to go in a different direction”, and there is absolutely nothing that an employee can do about it, even on a strong suspicion of racist motives.
And a company can give practically any reason they choose for not hiring someone in the first place, just as a lender can be vague in their reasons for denying someone a loan, and a realtor can simply sell or rent the property to another tenant. Perhaps racism is involved in the majority of cases where minorites aren’t given jobs or loans or housing. Perhaps it is involved in very few. But that it is even possible is why programs like Affirmative Action must exist. In an ideal world it would not be necessary, but this world – and this country less so – is hardly ideal. So, again, why can’t we or don’t we give privileges to people on the basis of their whiteness as we do to minorities? News flash: we do – by default – with no need for any laws or special programs.
So by now it should be clear why there is a need in certain rare cases for non-white exclusivity in society – as an attempt to balance things in American life, which regardless of how it is represented in the media and in the public consciousness, is not synonymous with “white life”. White exclusivity would be the default position of virtually every institution where it is not already, were there not systems in place to prevent it.
If this is not clear, because you think that I am making this up, or because you have made up your mind to reject it from the outset, I encourage you to do genuine research on all the things I have discussed for yourself. By no means should you take me at my word, and I am certain that you could find ample material by which to argue against me. But it is because such material exists – in defiance of truth and to further fundamentally racist agendas – that this essay was written in the first place.