DBTWP 6B: more White Guilt and Reverse Racism

Asking further about my entry on Reverse Racism and White Guilt, V.V.F. said:

"It's the fear of being misunderstood and of misunderstanding, the nagging suspicion the abyss between you is impassible." I think there is something going unsaid here. To me, this sounds like a simple recognition of the fact that you may not understand everything about someone else's life experience. In what way is this an instance of someone discriminating against you for your race? You say that there is "a layer of caution" on your part. Why? Do you feel that there is a layer of suspicion on their part? 

You've probably encountered scores of "invisible"/"passing" minorities in your life, without knowing it. Did any of these anxieties prove to be a factor in your interactions with them?  

As a genderqueer person, do you feel that there is any reason for cisgender people to be cautious around you? Do you tend to expect hostility from them? Why or why not?

I may have let my flair for poetic language get in the way of my point, as I sometimes do. Let's see if I can make this clearer.  When I meet a person of color for the first time, I feel that person may not like me for reasons which are beyond my control. This is not entirely ungrounded.  Some people of color genuinely don't like white people. Quite a few others find dealing with white people exasperating and irritating.  If my new acquaintance happens to be one of those people I'm already starting out at a disadvantage.

No, I am not whining about the great unfairness of it all.  I'm not a new penny and ain't everybody gonna like me.   It doesn't help that I (like most white people) tend to read people of color in general, and black people in particular, as angry. Now add to this the fact that I, like every other white liberal I know, hate being accused of racism.  And the fact that I, like every white liberal I know, know their resentment is not unfounded and so expect them to be resentful of my presence.

I don't know if this answers your "invisible/passing" question, but this nagging doubt is considerably worse when we are separated not just by race but by class and language.  I've seen a lot of white liberals who are very happy to be around fellow college-educated middle-class travelers of all colors.  Put them in the presence of a black social justice activist with an Ivy League degree and they'll talk shop until sundown.  But take them for a Sunday walk through Flatbush, Brooklyn and they're clutching their iPhones in terror as elderly Jamaican ladies stroll past in their churchgoing finery. The more we obviously have in common, the less of a problem this angst will be. It's when those commonalities diminish and we're forced to rely on race signifiers that this becomes worst.

To be perfectly clear, I do not call this "reverse racism."  Everything I've described here is my own stuff, but I suspect I'm not alone. I wonder how much of what is perceived as reverse racism can be chalked up to those kind of fears and that sort of projection.  Somebody is short-tempered because of a headache, a past-due phone bill or something else totally unrelated and we assume he was angry with us because he doesn't like white people.  But I'm not here to explain away anybody else's experiences, just to share my own.  Take what you want, leave the rest behind, etc.

As a genderqueer person, cisgender people (especially cisgender males) can be pretty fucking scary.  Gay- and trans-bashing is a constant threat every time you want to use a public restroom.   Meanwhile, many friendly cispeople feel no compunction about asking intimate questions about what you do in bed, what you plan to do with your body, &c.  You come to expect a certain amount of violence and cluelessness.  As far as systematic oppression goes, I'm not expressing genderqueerness at this point because, among other reasons, I have a daughter.  A gender non-conforming male-bodied person walking with a child is likely to attract unwanted attention, especially if they go anywhere near a playground.   So yes, I'd say genderqueer people can expect hostility from cisgender folks.

P.S. responding to your comment about Pat Buchanan in another message: whether or not I find Buchanan trustworthy is irrelevant.  I trust Buchanan about as far as I could throw a blue whale.  What matters is that many, perhaps a majority, of white Americans would find his message believable.  Which is why I keep talking about reverse racism despite finding the term problematic and unhelpful: if you're going to reach the people, you've got to speak their language.

DBTWP 7B: Reverse Racism and Interracial Romance

In response to one of my posts on reverse racism, The Professor said:

I don't really think this counts, I wouldn't exactly use the phrase "reverse racism" for it, and I'm hesitant to even mention it, but I (who am white) sometimes catch shit from some of my (black female) friends about "stealing their man" because my partner is West Indian. I think they're mostly joking, but sometimes (mostly when we're not entirely sober) there's some real vitriol behind it that makes me uneasy. Now, I am IN NO WAY comparing that to actual racism, but its still not ok.

I know that many white people see interracial relationships as reaffirmations of a post-racial America, and are surprised to find that many people of color are cool to the idea.  They expect to catch flak from bigoted white people but  are caught off-guard when POCs start criticizing their relationship.  Alas, just about all I know concerning your situation comes from skimming through my ex-girlfriend's Essence magazines over a decade ago. That's more than enough to know that this is a really loaded subject and that many black women have strong opinions about it.   While I wait for their thoughts, I can tell you my experience as half of an interracial couple in mid-to-late 90s New York.

Diane and I occasionally got dirty looks and passing comments from black men.  We were never physically accosted or assaulted, and even the glares weren't all that common: it certainly wasn't an overwhelming theme that pervaded every facet of our existence.  I can't recall any black women, or any white people, reacting negatively to us.  I'm not saying that we never saw white racism - I remember Diane calling out shopkeepers for following her around on a couple occasions, for example - but it wasn't focused on us as a couple.  They were worried she was a thief on account of her skin: they weren't chastising us for miscegenation.

Like you, this isn't anything I would call "reverse racism." For the vast majority of people we met it was a complete non-issue.  And I can certainly see where a white man with a black woman triggers a whole lot of painful history in the black community.  From the plantations to the quadroon balls and beyond, there's a long history of white men raping and exploiting black women.  And the same men who craved black female sexuality were terrified of black male sexuality and took violent steps to make sure their womenfolk didn't cross the color line. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I've seen more reports of open hostility and white racism from white women with black male partners.

I've heard several describe being called "nigger lovers" for dating or, in one case, talking to a black man.  I've also heard discussion amongst white guys on the subject. Invariably these conversations revolve around how black men are oversexed and over-endowed.  (Straight white guys are fascinated with large black penises: they find it nearly as interesting as the animals gay men insert into their rectums).  Then somebody explains that's why the girl in question likes black men even though they treat their women -- yes, it's always "their women" -- like bitches and hos. For some reason this combination triggers latent white racism in a major way.  I'm wondering if you or other readers have experienced this firsthand?

DBTWP 7a: Responding to Whatsername

(NOTE: Changing up title because "Ally School" doesn't really match my final goal.  Now called DBTWP or "Don't be THAT White Person.").

In a comment to my earlier post on reverse racism whatsername said...

Well, we want to let people tell their own stories, and let white people say things that are patently ridiculous (like the results of that Tufts survey) so we can debunk it and show how fucked up and wrong it is...right? Cuz I mean, every measure of discrimination shows that white people are still advantaged, and usually puts Black or Native people as the least advantaged. So whatever these people are feeling or thinking, they're factually fucking wrong. And that's really important in the context of ally-ship and racial consciousness, right?

I'm not here to debunk anyone's story, especially not before I've heard it.  I asked for personal anecdotes about white people who have encountered reverse racism.  It's hardly fair to start with the assumption those comments will be patently ridiculous, fucked up and wrong.  Or to show them a bunch of charts and statistics which disprove their lived experience after they have given me an honest reply. I am telling people to listen to POCs when they talk about racism and avoid minimizing or denying their experiences: it behooves me to model good behavior.

A few months back I went round and round with Wade Long, who insisted that there was no such thing as "black culture." The same thing I said then applies now. The term "reverse racism" conveys meaning for pretty much every English-speaking American.  Those poor unenlightened privilege-choked racists who disagree with all those measures of discrimination may be "factually fucking wrong." They still outnumber you by a considerable margin and once outside a dozen or so urban areas they have a great deal more political clout.  And if you don't think their concerns are worth hearing there are plenty of demagogues who will lend them a sympathetic ear.  Here's Pat Buchanan, who was once a fringe figure but is now pretty firmly in the Republican center-right, with some of his thoughts on anti-white racism.

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time? 

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse? 

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

To date the accounts I've seen of reverse racism differ considerably from reports of the way POCs experience racism.  And of course the concept is problematic: the two articles I linked to earlier and the quote from Buchanan should make that abundantly clear. But I am not in charge of the dictionary. And if a majority of white people (who are after all my target audience) believe reverse racism exists, then I might want to hear what they are talking about rather than dismissing their accounts out of hand.

Besides, I'm not so sure I'm in the business of making "allies" anyway.  The people I am aiming for are the well-meaning white people who genuinely want to be nice to people of color.  They don't want to be perceived as racist and they aren't, at least not in the "violent skinhead Nazi" way most Americans use the word.  And so I'm providing pointers on things which POCs are likely to see as racist, along with some historical and social context as to why.  I'd be thrilled if this leads to them becoming more politically conscious.  But if it leads to less moments of awkwardness and miscommunication between them and the POCs they encounter, I still chalk it up as a net gain.

Ally School 8: To Writers Asking Me Questions About Vodou

I just answered this question on one of our Yahoo groups, American Voodoo Forum.  This is not the first time somebody has asked for information about voodoo curses, voodoo spells, voodoo dolls, etc.  Generally I've ignored these messages: at best they show sloppy scholarship and an inability to JFGI first.  But since the issue keeps coming up, and since we're dealing with the topic here, I decided it was time to respond.

Hi, I know little about Voodoo. I'm doing research for a fictional story I'm writing about a woman living in Haiti just prior to the slave revolt. I want to write about a curse placed upon her but I want to be sure such a curse would even be possible in the Voodoo religion. It would be a curse made out of anger and retaliation. The curse would be that she would live for 200 years without love and to be barren. Is this anything a voodoo priest using black magic could put upon a person?

Here's my input as a writer and as an initiated priest of Vodou.

First, the island was called "Saint-Domingue" during the period you mention, not Haiti . You need to research the history of Saint-Domingue during the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804) That should provide you with plenty of interesting material to create a convincing and compelling background. Placing your characters in that setting will provide plenty of opportunities for anger and retaliation on any side of the fighting. You will also find many chances to create alliances and counter-alliances to advance the plot. For most of Saint-Domingue's history it was socially divided between wealthy French plantation owners, a French working class composed primarily of artisans and small farmers, free blacks and mulattos, and slaves. There were also escaped slaves who formed settlements in the mountainous countryside and who played a very important role in the fighting for independence. All these groups engaged with each other in any number of friendly and hostile ways: lots of opportunity for heroism and romantic tension, not to mention some truly nasty villains.

Curses are definitely a part of Haitian Vodou and of most African and African Diaspora traditions. But the curse you are describing is a convenient story trope which has little to do with any living magical or spiritual tradition.  You can set your story pretty much anywhere and have someone curse your protagonist to loveless, barren centuries. A vengeful Egyptian priestess of Isis, an offended Elf-Queen, an evil sorcerer -- the possibilities are endless.

Which brings us to some of the thorny issues with your request.

It sounds like you're writing a romance or fantasy tale complete with a spooky spell and a plucky leading character who struggles against its effects. And you're looking to Vodou and Haiti to provide the scary elements and a suitably exotic backdrop. You're not the first writer to do this, nor will you be the last. Vodou is a showy and dramatic religion, which combines the over-the-top baroque weirdness of Catholic art with dancing, drumming and spectacular trance possessions.

It is also a living religion, with millions of adherents who may not be thrilled to find their spirituality used as some writer's local color. Not to mention American readers (black and otherwise) who may object to yet another tale of natives casting dat ol' jungle juju on the white folks. There's a very good chance those people are going to find your story an offensive rehash of some toxic stereotypes. This is a culture which has been the subject of books like Cannibal Cousins and movies like I Walked with a Zombie. Your "voodoo curse" has a long literary history and we have no reason to expect your witch doctor plot device will be any better than the many which have come before it and the many which are yet to be penned.

Let's assume you don't want to repeat those tired and ugly cliches. You want to treat the issue fairly and use Vodou respectfully. You want to have an accurate backdrop upon which you can present your narrative.

If you are going to set your story in Saint-Domingue, you will need to talk about race and class. Is your cursed protagonist white, black or mulatto? Is she the daughter of a plantation owner or the wife of a poor French artisan? Is she a dark skinned fieldhand in love with a brave runaway or the quadroon mistress of a dashing French soldier? People who complain that Americans are race-obsessed. We've got nothing on a culture which regularly used terms like "quadroon," "mulatto" and "octaroon" to define people. Your character's race and social status are going to determine how she interacts with everyone else in Saint-Domingue and how she gets cursed. Because these topics are controversial, because some of us like to believe we live in a postracial society while others know all too well we don't, you're going to have many opportunities to piss people off.

Are you ready to deal with the sexual politics on an island where slaves were considered their master's property? It was not uncommon for a black slave to endure repeated rapes by her owner, combined with ongoing brutal abuse from his resentful wife. Most young white men on the island had one or more mulatto mistresses, with whom they dallied until their return to France and a pre-arranged marriage. During the Revolution, as in many wars, rape was a tool of degradation and conquest. If your heroine doesn't experience this firsthand she will certainly be dealing with women who have. You really can't write a story set in Saint-Domingue with a female protagonist and not address this issue. And if you don't handle it sensitively you're going to end up with the bastard child of Gone with the Wind and Fifty Shades of Grey.

Of course, you don't have to take my advice. Quite a few people will tell you I am overly sensitive, that I should lighten up and stop taking things so seriously. You can certainly write and probably even sell a story featuring a dreadlocked savage with rattle in hand and bone in nose, complete with bare-breasted black women gyrating to the primitive drumbeat. For all the talk about humorless liberals stifling free speech, there is no shortage of outrageously offensive, exploitative and stupid material available in every medium. There's no law mandating that you show concern to the feelings of the Haitian people and their culture: there's no requirement that you act with sensitivity or avoid stereotypes which should have faded with the last minstrel show.

On the other hand, you did ask for advice concerning your story and voodoo, and so here we are.

TL/DR: If you're going to write about Vodou and the Haitian Revolution do your research and get at least a basic understanding of its history and the underlying social and cultural issues. Otherwise, set your story somewhere else and spare everybody the mess.

Ally School 7: Unpacking Reverse Racism

It is generally a bad idea to complain about reverse racism around people of color. The most positive response you are likely to get is quiet sighing and eye rolling: many will be more forceful in their objections.  Consider A.D. Song and Mia McKenzie's "How to be a Reverse Racist." Some of its highlights include: 

Ship them from Germany, Sweden, and other exotic countries. Force them to build entire cities, roads, bridges. Force them to plant and harvest all the food everyone eats. Let an entire economic system be built on their backs, with their blood and sweat. Later, deny them access to the system they have been used to build, and accuse them of being extremely lazy.

* * * 

Do everything you can think of to make it so that white people make less money; their children are shot by cops; white women are at higher risk for assault and they are exotified until they no longer seem human; white men are beaten and thrown into jails because they look “suspicious” and “threatening”; they are racially profiled everywhere they go.

You may find "How to be a Reverse Racist" disturbing.  It scornfully dismisses all your experiences as whining from "[w]hite people who are confronted with their white privilege and the white supremacist acts they perpetuate." Song and McKenzie pull no punches and paint with broad strokes: they appear unconcerned that their humorous piece could be read as an attack on all white people, you included.  You're no white supremacist, and lumping you in with klansmen and skinheads reduces you to an ugly, hateful stereotype. It's offensive, demeaning, even (sorry) reverse racist.

I see why many white people have a hard time wrapping their head around the idea that reverse racism is impossible. I know racism involves prejudice plus power, bigotry plus social and political mechanisms of control and oppression.  But outside of a fairly small circle of activists and allies, most white people don't see it that way.  They see racism as disliking a person based on race, creed, etc. and acting on that dislike.  The "prejudice plus power" definition of racism is the most workable , but it's not the only or even the most widely accepted one. For most racism is prejudice and bigotry period.

So when they get treated badly because they are white, they assume it's racism. Then they're told that it's not, and that furthermore only white people can be racists.  Which is, by everything they've been taught, a racist idea.  The dynamics of racist oppression are invisible if you're not experiencing them: privilege is invisible if you are. It's not surprising that a lot of well-meaning white people have trouble with this idea, or that the Usual Suspects use it as proof that white anti-racists and white liberals in general suffer from racial self-hatred and constantly make excuses for minorities.   

   

I'm not here to point out racists, condemn whiners or declare anybody guilty or innocent of the sin of privilege.  I don't know your backstory, what you brought to the table when you read that post or what experiences you have had with reverse racism. Neither do I know the life experiences which led Song & McKenzie to write this piece.  What I can do is provide some context which may help you to consider alternate interpretations of this article.

Consider first that Black Girl Dangerous defines itself as "a place where queer women and trans* people of color can make our voices heard on the issues that interest us and affect us." While BGD does not block white people from commenting, our presence there is neither necessary nor especially desired.  (To abuse another term from the Civil Rights era, they aren't running an affirmative action outreach to white readers).  They are under no obligation to educate white people or to show special concern for our feelings.

Remember that the authors of Black Girl Dangerous are activists.  Activists generally favor the loud and direct over the quiet and subtle.  They are hoping to get your attention and rub your face in a problem. Since Song & McKenzie are both women of color, chances are they have experienced the silencing other people of color have reported here and elsewhere.  When they are polite they are ignored: when they speak up they are accused of anger.  And while we're on that subject keep in mind that white people tend to read people of color in general, and black people in particular, as angry or hostile.

And if you have a problem grasping humor and satire (a real possibility for Aspies or people who speak English as a foreign language, among others), perhaps you will find a more serious analysis useful. In his "Myth of Reverse Racism," Tim Wise has pointed out some of these differences.

Power is much more potent when it can be deployed without having to break the law to do it, or when doing it would only risk a small civil penalty at worst. So discrimination in lending, though illegal is not going to result in the perp going to jail; so too with employment discrimination or racial profiling.

There are plenty of ways that more powerful groups can deploy racism against less powerful groups without having to break the law: by moving away when too many of "them" move in (which one can only do if one has the option of moving without having to worry about discrimination in housing.)

Or one can discriminate in employment but not be subjected to penalty, so long as one makes the claim that the applicant of color was "less qualified," even though that determination is wholly subjective and rarely scrutinized to see if it was determined accurately, as opposed to being a mere proxy for racial bias. In short, it is institutional power that matters most.

I've talked about taking people at their word when they perceive racism, and so I assume those who say they have encountered reverse racism are telling the truth, or at least their truth.  They encountered some words, some action, some situation which they perceived to be anti-white discrimination aimed specifically them.  Instead of explaining what they did or did not really experience, I'd rather let people tell their own stories.  Whatever is taking place under the rubric "reverse racism" appears to be a real problem.  At least a lot of white people think so: a 2011 Tufts University study suggests that most white Americans believe that anti-white discrimination is a greater problem than anti-black discrimination. 

Ally School 6a: More White Guilt, now with Reverse Racism

In a G+ comment to my earlier post, Lisa Allen replied

Wow Kenaz!  I actually think it may be due to reverse racism even more than "WLG" hehe!  To me, it has nothing to do with our president's genetic/ethnic background - and when people talk about what he actually DOES being wrong, the immediate excuse is that the one calling the wrongdoing is a "racist" when it is clear it is they who are racists.  Separation allows them to skirt the real issue and perpetuate their oppressing agenda and I do not think this projection is inadvertent.  In fact, I believe it is rather deliberate because it has become a tool that in no other time would be useful for throwing a wrench into those who would wish to fix things actually wrong.  Great post!

There are people who claim every Obama critic is a racist: there are people who claim every Obama supporter is a communist. They argue on various news sites and political blogs. We're a polarized nation and we have all cyberspace for our personal bathroom wall. This sparring may give us a glimpse at the American id and help us plumb the depths of our lowest common denominator.  But I'm not sure how it applies in other arenas.  Let's take a look at mainstream media and the blogosphere.

Here's Jonathan Chait writing in New York magazine:

If we trace liberal disappointment with President Obama to its origins, to try to pinpoint the moment when his crestfallen supporters realized that this was Not Change They Could Believe In, the souring probably began on December 17, 2008, when Obama announced that conservative Evangelical pastor Rick Warren would speak at his inauguration. “Abominable,” fumed John Aravosis on AmericaBlog. “Obama’s ‘inclusiveness’ mantra always seems to head only in one direction—an excuse to scorn progressives and embrace the Right,” seethed Salon’s Glenn Greenwald. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow rode the story almost nightly: “I think the problem is getting larger for Barack Obama.” Negative 34 days into the start of the Obama presidency, the honeymoon was over.  

I've seen liberal criticism of the CIA Predator drone strikes, the administration's position on outsourcing, Guantanamo Bay and Homeland Security abuses and many other issues. Many liberal essayists express dissatisfaction with Obama: I don't see them being silenced by accusations of racism.  Now let's look at the guys on the other side. I haven't seen any evidence at all that conservative media personalities fear the "R-word" or care about the sensibilities of nonwhite people.  If anything, they flaunt charges of racism as a sign of their Political Incorrectness. I have seen the "Obama Bucks Food Stamp" issued by a California women's GOP organization and similar material called racist, but that isn't censorship so much as truth in advertising.

In any event, I'm very interested in your comments about "reverse racism." I frequently hear that reverse racism doesn't exist. Yet I see so many white people talk about reverse racism and how it affects their lives. If I am going to take these experiences at face value, and I always try to do that, the there is something going on which is worth exploring.   I'd like to hear more about how this reverse racism is experienced and consider some ways we can address it.  Hell, I'd like to see more conversation on the subject in general.  Toward that end, here's an anecdote about how being white affects my life.

If I am writing an article about a black multimillionaire I will avoid calling him a tycoon. When discussing a Chinese intellectual's theory I might describe flaws in his argument rather than chinks in his armor. And I'm damn sure not going to talk about how a lesbian crisis manager has a gift for sticking her finger in the dike at just the right moment.  I also try to avoid feeding into stereotypes. I might criticize the cynical way in which Obama achieved a particular goal, but I wouldn't call him a pimp.  I also wouldn't refer to an Italian-American executive as a corporate hit man, or describe a Jewish financier as beady-eyed and grasping. I write to get a point across, not to generate tedious side discussions and feed trolls.

Is this self-censorship? More like removing a sentence fragment or fixing a grammatical error.  I write to get a message across.  These things would distract from that: therefore they need to be fixed or replaced.  And it's really not an incredible effort, certainly nothing that requires more than a quick read-through.  It doesn't mean that I have to shy away from controversy or tiptoe on eggshells so that I never offend anybody. But I want it to be the controversy I choose and the offense I intend.

Text comes easy for me: my real challenge comes when I step away from the keyboard. In first meetings with people of color, there is be a layer of caution which won't be there if I'm dealing with another white person.   A white person might dislike me: our conversation might explode into an argument or become a passionate meeting of the minds at any minute.  But there's not the feeling that at any moment, that either of us could step on mines laid centuries before we were born.  It's not the classic and oft-parodied white liberal fear of getting mugged.  It's the fear of being misunderstood and of misunderstanding, the nagging suspicion the abyss between you is impassible.

It's not something hard-wired into my DNA, nor is it insurmountable. The wariness fades, usually and mostly, as we get to know each other. But I'd be lying if I said it didn't exist, and I doubt very much I'm the only white person who has experienced this.  We like to say "race doesn't matter." In those moments of first contact, in that place when there is nothing between us but history and possibility, we become painfully aware that it matters very much indeed.

Ally School VI: George Will and White Liberal Guilt

Conservative columnist George Will has figured out Obama's secret: white liberal guilt.  According to Will, the liberal media have been uncommonly gentle with America's first black president.  They put the kindest possible spin on his every blunder: they make excuses for his failings because they want so very much for him to succeed.  And all this well-meaning negrophilia may bring him back to the White House for a second term despite his numerous inadequacies.

(As an added bonus, he  combines his election handicapping with one of the most interesting takes I've yet seen on civil rights history. Who would have thought Jackie Robinson was less important than a black guy who established a business owner's right to fire at will?)

A significant date in the nation’s civil rights progress involved an African American baseball player named Robinson, but not Jackie. The date was Oct. 3, 1974, when Frank Robinson, one the greatest players in history, was hired by the Cleveland Indians as the major leagues’ first black manager. But an even more important milestone of progress occurred June 19, 1977, when the Indians fired him. That was colorblind equality. 

Managers get fired all the time. The fact that the Indians felt free to fire Robinson — who went on to have a distinguished career managing four other teams — showed that another racial barrier had fallen: Henceforth, African Americans, too, could enjoy the God-given right to be scapegoats for impatient team owners or incompetent team executives.

His beliefs on baseball may be his own, but Will's ideas on liberal self-loathing are shared by many white conservatives.  In their world white liberal guilt makes judges coddle black thugs and causes politicians to ignore the rampaging immigrant hordes.  White liberal guilt drives academics to label as "racist" anybody who dares speak truth about minority crimes and shortcomings.  And white liberal guilt led a well-meaning but naive America to elect an obviously unqualified black man.  But in my decades of experience as a white liberal, I've seen white guilt manifest quite differently.

What these critics are calling "liberal guilt" is more liberal etiquette.  It's not political correctness so much as politesse, standards of behavior and speech which mark one as properly enlightened.  One tries to avoid saying offensive things about minorities not because of some desire for redemption as because it is impolite.  (Overt racism is also a huge class delineator: there's a reason many jokes about white racists involve missing teeth and trailer parks). 

In my experience white guilt manifests not as slavish devotion to minority causes but as a bristling defensiveness. Liberal etiquette provides monologues for uncomfortable situations. You can recognize your privilege, acknowledge the benefits you receive from an oppressive society, and express sincere appreciation of the daily struggle your critic faces. White guilt goes way deeper than that. It's the nagging worry those rituals you perform to reaffirm your color-blind world aren't enough, that maybe you haven't escaped the sins of history.   It asserts "My family never owned any slaves!" when no one has mentioned reparations: it declares all critics to be anti-white bigots trying to stir up ancient history.  Far from groveling in the face of criticism, white guilt circles the wagons. 

I have no doubt that some white people voted for Obama because electing America's First Black President gave them a warm and fuzzy feeling.  It certainly was a draw for campaign volunteers: who doesn't want to be a part of history, after all?  I am equally sure that a fair number of people did not vote for Obama because he is black, whether they said so outright or found soothing excuses to tell themselves and others.  I have no idea of how many votes Obama gained from the first group or lost from the second group: neither, so far as I can tell, does Mr. Will. Yet he seems to believe that the latter group was insignificant while the former controls enormous chunks of the electorate and media.  For Will the real threat to America is not white racism but white self-loathing.