May 25, 2001
By Tim Wise

I think it's called 'projection.' When someone subconsciously realizes that a particular trait applies to them, and then attempts to locate that trait in others, so as to alleviate the stigma or self-doubt engendered by the trait in question.

It's a well-understood concept of modern psychology, and explains much: like why men who are struggling with their own sexuality are often the most outwardly homophobic. Or the way whites during slavery typified black men as rapists, even though the primary rapists were the white slaveowners themselves, taking liberties with their female property, or white men generally, raping their wives with impunity.

I got to thinking about projection recently, after receiving many an angry e-mail from folks who had read one or another of my previous commentaries, and felt the need to inform me that people of color are "looking for a handout," and are "dependent" on government, and of course, whites.

Such claims are making the rounds these days, especially as debate heats up about such issues as reparations for enslavement, or affirmative action. And this critique is a prime example of projection, for in truth, no people have been as dependent on others throughout history as white folks.

We depended on laws to defend slavery and segregation so as to elevate us, politically, socially and economically. We depended on the Naturalization Act of 1790, to make all European immigrants eligible for nearly automatic citizenship, with rights above all persons of color. We depended on land giveaways like the Homestead Act, and housing subsidies that were essentially white-only for many years, like FHA and VA loans. Even the GI Bill was largely for whites only, and all of these government-sponsored efforts were instrumental in creating the white middle class. But it goes deeper than that.

From the earliest days, "whites" were dependent on the land and natural resources of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Since Europe offered no substantial natural riches from its soil, European economic advance and expansion was entirely reliant on the taking of other people's land by force, trickery or coercion. That, my friends, is dependence.

Then these same Europeans relied on slave labor to build a new nation and to create wealth for whites; wealth that was instrumental to financing the American Revolution, as well as allowing the textile and tobacco industries to emerge as international powerhouses. From 1790 to 1860 alone, whites and the overall economy reaped the benefits of as much as $40 billion in unpaid black labor. That, my friends, is dependence.

Though apologists for black oppression enjoy pointing out that Africans often sold other Africans into slavery, this too indicates just how dependent whites have been on black people: having to pay and bribe Africans to catch their own and deliver them to us so as to fatten the profits of European elites. We couldn't even do that by ourselves.

Then whites were dependent on Native peoples to teach us farming skills, as our complete ineptitude in this realm left the earliest colonists starving to death and turning to cannibalism when the winters came in order to survive.

We were dependent on Mexicans to teach us how to extract gold from riverbeds and quartz--critical to the growth of the national economy in the mid to late 1800's--and had we not taken over half their nation in an unprovoked war, the emerging Pacific ports so vital to the modern U.S. economy would not have been ours, but Mexico' s. That, my friends, is dependence. Then we were dependent on their labor in the mid 20th century under the bracero program, through which over five million Mexicans were brought into the country for cheap agricultural work, and then sent back across the border.

And we were dependent on Asian labor to build the railroads that made transcontinental travel and commerce possible. 90% of the labor used to build the Central Pacific Railroad in the 1860's were Chinese, imported for the purpose, and exploited because the railroad bosses felt they could better control them than white workers.

In fact, all throughout U.S. labor history, whites have depended on the subordination of workers of color; by the marking of black and brown peoples as the bottom rung on the ladder--a rung below which they would not be allowed to fall. By virtue of this racialized class system whites could receive the "psychological wage" of whiteness, even if their real wages left them destitute. That too is dependence, and a kind that has marked even the poorest whites.

The plantation owners in the South were surely dependent on blacks, and for more than field labor. We relied on black women to suckle and care for our children. We relied on blacks to build the levees that kept rivers like the Mississippi from our doorstep. We relied on black girls to fan our sleeping white ladies so as to ensure their comfort. We relied on blacks to do everything from cooking, to cleaning, to making our beds, to polishing our shoes, to chopping the wood to heat our homes, to nursing us back to health when we fell ill. We prided ourselves on being (or aspiring to be) men and women of leisure, while black and brown folks did all the work. That, and a lot more, is dependence; and yet we still insist they are the lazy ones.

And northern industrial capitalism relied on black labor too, especially to break the labor militance of white ethnics by playing off one group of workers against the other. That also, is dependence.

During the civil war, the armies of the Confederacy relied on blacks to cook for the troops and to make the implements of war they would use in battle; and likewise, the Union relied on black soldiers--around 200,000 of them--to ultimately win the war. That too, is most assuredly dependence.

And white dependence on people of color continues to this day. Each year, African Americans spend over $500 billion with white-owned companies: money that goes mostly into the pockets of the white owners, white employees, white stockholders, and white communities in which they live. And yet we say black people need us? We think they are the dependent ones, relying as we assume they do on the paltry scraps of an eviscerated welfare state? Now let's just cut the crap. Who would be hurt more: black folks if all welfare programs were shut down tomorrow, or white folks, if blacks decided they were through transferring half-a-trillion dollars each year to white people and were going to keep their money in their own communities?

Or what about the ongoing dependence of white businesses on the exploitation of black labor? Each year, according to estimates from the Urban Institute, over $120 billion in wages are lost to African Americans thanks to discrimination in the labor market. That's money that doesn't end up in the hands of the folks who earned it, but rather remains in the bank accounts of owners. That my friends, is dependence.

Our dependence on people of color even extends to our need to have them as spokespeople for our ideologies and agendas: thus, the proliferation of high-profile conservatives of color who bash their own people for us, so we don't have to do it alone. Ken Hamblin, Clarence Thomas, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Linda Chavez: all of them, walking, talking, lawn jockeys, shining their lights for white supremacy. And oh yes, our need for them is most certainly a form of dependence.

Then, we rely on still more people of color to help further the agenda of white dominance: namely Asians, whom we proclaim to be "model minorities." "See how hard the Asians work,' whites love to say, 'why can't blacks be more like them?" Of course, we fail to mention the staggering poverty among Southeast Asians; or the fact that the most successful Asian sub-groups came to this country with both business experience and usually college educations; or the fact that despite hard work, Asian Pacific Islanders still earn between 11-26% less than their white counterparts, even when their qualifications are equal. Never mind all that: the model minority myth has a power all its own, and is one more way in which whites have become dependent on those who are not.

Indeed, I am beginning to think that whites are so dependent on people of color that we wouldn't know what to do without them. Oh sure, some neo-Nazis say they would love to try, but in reality I doubt they could make it. If there were no black and brown folks around then whites would have no one to blame but themselves for the crime that occurred; no one to blame but themselves when they didn't get the job they wanted; no one to blame but themselves when their lives turned out to be less than they expected. In short, we need people of color--especially in a subordinate role--as a way to build ourselves up, and provide a sense of self-worth we otherwise lack.

To be sure, our very existence as white people is dependent on a negative: to be white has meaning only in terms of what it doesn't mean. To be white only has meaning in so far as it means not to be black or brown. Whiteness has no intrinsic meaning culturally: can anyone even articulate what "white culture" means? Not our various European cultures mind you--which do have meaning but have been largely lost to us in the mad dash to accept whiteness and the perks that come with it--but white culture itself.

In workshops I have asked white folks and people of color what they like about being black, white, or whatever they in fact may be. For African-Americans the answers always have to do with the pride they feel, coming from families who have struggled against the odds, fought injustice, persevered, and maintained dignity in the face of great obstacles. In other words, to be black has internal meaning, derived from the positive actions and experiences of black people themselves. Variations on the same theme tend to be expressed by Latinos, Asians and Indigenous peoples as well.

But for whites, if they come up with anything at all, it is typically something about how nice it is not to have to worry about being racially profiled by police, or how nice it is not to be presumed less competent by employers, or discriminated against when applying for a loan, or looking for a home. In other words, for whites, our self-definition is wrapped up entirely in terms of what and who we aren't. What it means to be white is merely to not be "the other." And for that to have any meaning whatsoever there first must be an "other" against which to contrast oneself.

And that is the most significant dependence of all.

Tim Wise is a Nashville-based antiracist writer, lecturer and activist.

@All. Read the article. Hmmm. Sorry to get a bit academic for a second. There is a lot of this stuff around, it's a new fad in cultural studies, eg media studies and other post modern schools; looking at mattters of identity. We have have racial, sexual, sexuality and this is the new lick.

It's about analysing and deconstructing "whiteness" or how white people form their various social identities in relation to other people eg us and others.

But I wouldn't take it too seriously, even though there are things to learn from almost anything.

Let me extend a point which Blackmatta correctly identified. But I will rephrase it, in the way the principle was taught to me and I hope you guys see the value of it[fingers crossed].

1. Be careful at the information you direct black people to,even if the info seems useful on a particular level

2. When directing our people to information, try as best as you can to direct them to authorative sources, written by our own people. Failing that then continue.

Ask yourself if you had one piece of written information to give to a black person, who would only read one thing, from what source would you choose it. I suggest a black person.

3. Who you cite, or quote, or refer others to you empower, give authority to, and also indirectly money to. You take from one person and give to another. Consequently, I could find myself, promoting others, who do not directly have our interests at heart, while ignoring anyone here or similar people who have something of validity to contribute to our people on mulitple levels.

Any black person in the publishing, adcademic/writers or in other areas of potential intellectual leadership, will tell you how our igorance weakens our own power, and empowers those who are fundamentally opposed to our interest and already have superior opportunties and structures compared to us.

Hence why Blackmatta's comment about providing other sources, written by our people, directly going to the heart of the matter, not indirectly, I think would always be my prefered option in this type of circumstance.

By the way, we can see the various ways white people see themselves and form key aspects of their identities, by observing the comments of people like Geoff on the Zimbabwe land thread and Blackmatta's examination of him.

Fredniceone.gif

@BlackMatta & FredBlack

Thank you for your words of caution, in my excitement I misseda potentilly manipulative undercurrent.

I do think however that useful propaganda can be extracted from such analysis',propagandathat may be useful in raising the self esteem of Blacks.Obvioulsy, only if presented from a Black perspective.

Peace

Hi everyone,

I'm January Kitty and this is my first time on Blackchat.

I'd just like to say as someone who is currently studying Media and Cultural Studies that I agree with Fred, and just wanted to point out that if people are interested in exploring this matter further through the writings of a black intellectual thenthey should look for books written byBell Hooks.




JK

@Prince Hakeem who said:

"I just read the article, but to be honest, I'm past caring about white people have to say. To hell with their idiosyncracies. They're either blatantly racist, subtley racist, patronising or downright erroneous".

Had me cracking up herebanana.gifbanana.gifbanana.gif

But so damn true.

@ladies..Bell Hooks hmmmm. Not sure about that. But I'll let that pass. I suppose she is a sincere sister,even though confused badly concerning matters of identity.But she has evolved and is evolving slowly and getting there

But is a genuine sister. So I have a soft spot for her. Should have seen her early work. What a joke...Her Book "Ain't I A Woman, Race Feminism etc" and "Feminist Theory" are probably the worse books every written and had she not been a black woman in those trendy white circles,
those books would never see the light of day.

Utter crap and mediocre crap at that....In these books she said black men are white men are joined as enemies in effect against women, gays and rubbish like that and slavery was essentially about male dominance.

Now she has had to do a U turn, because she has realised that women can do nish without men when it comes to matters of fundamental social change or revolution. BB she realised what I outlined to your response the other day on "Any Positive Statements About Black Men"[visa vis role of women and education and leadership]. Which goes without men,nothing in the serious world moves.

You can get all the degrees or cars in the world, or things which many see as symbols of status. But that has very little impact on serious structural things. So she has to talk nice to black menif Even Bell Hookes as dumb as she is knows that only men can bring about the change in things she wants even if it as attitudes to women.

Now she is writing books like "Killing Rage" spitting more fire and anger at white people than the most extreme elements of the black power or nationalist community. Why because her ideals have collapsed all around her, and as Prince Hakeem said it. White people are white people and black people are black people. Shame it takes some a life time to realise that.

Fredniceone.gif

@january kitty spice or whateva

I won't be taking your advise to read books by bell hook, another Black Man hating lesbian. This womans absorbtion of white feminist thinking, is so thorough there isn't enough room leftin her brain to register the words "Your Black!".

She has nothing to offer Blacks in my opinion apart from pointless agonising over the woes of a few homos.

I am not interested in white liberal philosophy other than to take that part of it that be can used to to undermine white supremacy.

This woman and her likes don't have one tenth of the courage of a Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, or Winnie Mandela. These Sisters have effected real tangible change in the lives of Black Folk, what has bell hooks done?

Nah you read bell hooksthen when your'e all hyped to go screama "Black Man raped me",you can get together with some white feministsat a cottagingmeeton Hampstead Heath and talk about the good old days when at least you could get one lynched.

At least you won't get in the way of those that can make things happen.

All,

An article like this is not my "preferred" type article, nor do I recommend this persons writings, this is a great insight into the psyche of white from whites. So you truly believe we can take on and defeat this psychological "white supremacy" only looking from a black perspective? Thats like a football team going to play in the super bowl and only looking at their plays, and ignoring the other team. Sounds like they will be unprepared huh? Of course Black intellectuals are brilliant, and have great wisdom. This is however a war, a war on the minds of folk, and we must understand the thought process of our enemy to defeat him. If we know going into war that our opponent is very weak, but just projects to have strength, thats empowering. And it will take that type confidence to win. Have you ever been in a situation where there was a black person that clearly relinquished his manly authority to a white? As if to say "it only is right if you do it Mr. White man". Well what if that Black man read that article, and learned that whites are very weak at the core of their psyche. Then the Black man would most likely be empowered to stand up and be a man.
This whole racism thing supposes that whites and right, and blacks are wrong. Once we learn that that is the farthest thing from the truth, we can stand up an be strong.
I do not understand this, why do Blacks reject things that can help them, as if to say we have totally arrived in terms of equality? I dont know where you live, but in the great ol' USA the racial divide is huge, and not much progress has been made in the last 40 years. Sure we hold more political offices, and make more money, but we have no say in the grand scheme of things, too divided, and the money leaves the black community as soon as its made. Things have to change. I starts with us empoering ourselfs, and learing about this white man, how he thinks instead of him constantly giving his opinion on us. We can get this info from Black scholars and intellectuals for sure, but lets not ignore reading things from the white mind that created all this nonsense.


Solomon

All,

Just a question, why is it ignorant to read something? Isnt a ignorant person misinformed?



Solomon

@Kingdomglobal

I have thought about this, and I do thinkmany valid points have been madein response toyour post.

For myself I agree that not all white people have bad intentions, in fact even Malcom X frequently praised John Brown, a white man whose actions precipitated the American Civil War.

There are those who will no doubt take a cynical view of the above, but I'm in agreement with you, as one Brother said tome once "know your enemies and know your friends. "

I believe there are Whites of genuine good will, who are prepared to go thedistance with us, we should not alienate these people.

I will take what I believe to be sound advice from whatever source it comes from and make it work for me, but it is alsogood that there are Brothersshrewd enough to say whoa! whenbrotherslike me run ahead of ourselves.

It's about learning bruh, refining your ideas and gettin smart.Don't be annoyedwith what's been said, let us learn!