During the throes of a two-month white supremacist standoff-turned-FBI confrontation in Oregon’s Malheur Wildlife Refuge and the dawning reality of an increasingly legitimized Donald Trump candidacy, Portland Community College announced it would observe “Whiteness History Month.”
In what college officials promise to be an annual event each April — not a “celebratory” project — this observance seeks to become part of a conversation that explains how whiteness and privilege function in society.
This sudden need for critical insight into whiteness emerged during a time when white fraternal entitlement seeped from the Bundy family-led standoff and larger numbers of Americans feel totally comfortable spewing racist invective at Trump rallies and beyond, with no sense of shame, decorum or self-reflection.
As a predominantly white institution in an overwhelmingly white state, it’s a fair assumption the community college wants to disassociate with the kind of whiteness now getting national attention. The challenge is doing so without leveraging the privilege that allow white progressives to hijack the specialized language that allows marginalized people of color to fight for their own liberation.
Meanwhile, white conservatives have lashed out at the very notion of such an observance, saying the event sounds like “Hate Whitey Month.” These critics fear white people’s historical accomplishments will be reduced to a mere discussion of white supremacy, something they grossly denounce as having anything to do with whites’ disproportionate amount of success in the United States. College officials say the project is actually about rejecting “master narratives of whiteness” and promoting “multicultural education and equity.”
Anyone or any institution with the slightest liberal underpinnings would want to differentiate themselves from hate groups like the Oregon militia, but how one accomplishes this is difficult. The fact that the school uses language such as “multicultural” and “diversity” is unsettling, as these post-integrationist concepts have created the opportunity for what University of California, Santa Barbara, sociologist Howard Winant calls “white racial dualism.” He explains, “Many white Americans can now join efforts to undo civil rights reform without recognizing their activities or opinions as participation in the contemporary reconfiguration of white power and privilege.”
Specifically, white liberals and colleges can reject overt patriotic racism but still perpetuate other forms of white privilege and entitlement. They do this by ignoring more subtle material gains of whiteness, while occupying ideological concepts like “multiculturalism” and “diversity” — concepts built more so for oppressed folks of color rather than white cultural narratives. In fact, this is exactly what the Bundy and Hammond families did in their rhetoric around their relationship with land ownership and the law.
To be sure, whiteness and privilege are difficult things to separate, as Robyn Wiegman, a women’s studies professor at Duke University, declared in “Whiteness Studies and The Paradox of Particularity.” The power of whiteness, Wiegman argues, does not just come from the position of universal and invisible power, rather it is the more contemporary version of whiteness that allows white people to be both universal and also particular as multicultural notions of race and culture are being co-opted by white “cultural” identity. This is certainly the case with the militiamen and the Northern Paiute, the Indigenous population that wildlife refuge lands were originally stolen from, a cultural narrative completely lost in all of this.
But making whiteness visible doesn’t fully address who holds power — something perhaps lost in the community college’s ideas about non-celebratory whiteness exploration. Hopefully, whiteness scholars curated for this month-long event will make clear the dilemma a multicultural approach to anti-racism creates, especially when “dualism” is not overtly addressed.
Moreover, college officials must admit they are exploring whiteness at this historical moment because they share borders with extremists who have been nationally mocked. And for those of us on the multicultural self-help circuit must admit our complicity in the condition that allows white liberals to scoff certain extremist behaviors but still bask in white privilege.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.