Rooted in something something something
Cristina Beltrán in the Washington Post:
To understand Trump’s support, we must think in terms of multiracial Whiteness
Or we could just recognize that conservatism is not exclusively white. We know this already. “The Hispanic community” in Florida is highly conservative, because of the flight from Castro’s Cuba. That’s not “whiteness,” it’s politics. I don’t see what’s gained by calling it Whiteness.
Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.
How is that different from class? It’s not as if the billionaires are eager to share their billions with working class whites.
Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition. For voters who see the very act of acknowledging one’s racial identity as itself racist, the politics of multiracial whiteness reinforces their desired approach to colorblind individualism. In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.
In other words a lot of people vote against their own interests. We know. I don’t see what “Multiracial Whiteness” adds to that.
Call it power, hegemony, inequality – call it something reasonably exact. “Multiracial Whiteness” is just pseudo-clever academic paradox, which helps no one.
So much American political discourse absolutely contorts itself to avoiding using the concept of class. Multiracial whiteness is just laughable, the political equivalent of phlogiston.
Virtue signaling?
Naif, I like that analogy – phlogistan.
And it’s also ridiculous to assume that other cultures and other people can’t have the same ideas and choices that white people do. It’s removing agency from people who are not “white” (though in this definition of whiteness, white people can be not white, which is ridiculous in and of itself) and turning all agency over to white people. People who are ethnically different follow along.
It seems to me that there are a couple of things happening here. By claiming this is “whiteness”, they can retain the idea of the “noble savage”, of the oppressed minority that is unflawed, except where whiteness has entered their makeup. It can maintain the idea of western imperialism spoiling the perfect Eden that existed before…well, before whiteness happened. And it can remove the speaker from the stench of whiteness, because multiracial whiteness also leaves the room for white non-whiteness, both of which are ridiculous on the face of it. And it means you can call black women Karen to your heart’s content without feeling like you are a racist. Because if she’s white, well, what’s racist? She is…
Well, there was a time when Irish and Italians weren’t considered “White”. Much of their efforts at integration in the U.S.was precisely the desire to change that–to be granted the status that comes from being white, without eliminating that status as part of your position in society. And yes, there is such a thing as White Hispanics, who very clearly regard themselves as White-with-a-capital-W, and who have much of the same set of privileges that Anglo-Saxon Whites do. To deny this would be to claim that Trayvon Martin wasn’t a victim of white racism (his shooter was “White Hispanic”).
It can, of course, be taken too far. But it’s not just as cut-and-dried as you’re making it out, here.
But what *is* “whiteness”? Somewhat like the word “woman” is being made mush, this term “whiteness” is simply asserted without definition. At least we have a well-worn definition of “woman” to rely on, but I have never encountered a plain explanation of what “whiteness” is.
Beltrán apparently thinks of it as a more exciting (more paradoxical-academic) way of saying privilege or social dominance, plus bad. She’s talking about class but “whiteness” makes it sound so much newer and more…well, woke.
When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. A white-cis-hetero oppressor’s nail.
Not even asking about the influence of the Catholic Church, and the predatory evangelicals, on Latin Americans. In California, Prop. 8, an anti-gay marriage bill, passed because of Black and Latin voters’ homophobia.
At least Beltran didn’t call them ‘Zionists.’ That’ll come next week.
The Wikipedia article on “Whiteness Studies” contains this definition of “whiteness”:
In other words they too say the word is useless or downright harmful. “Has no stable meaning”=”can be used for any polemical purpose.”