Question:

I was very troubled by this article. It only confirms my own suspicion that whites are too defensive to really have a discussion about racism or to do anything about racism. Your web site became greatly diminished in my views and lost some of its appeal. Now, if I should read your articles I will be wary, if not judgmental. I am now questioning whether this company can truly serve as a vehicle for change and open discourse or [if] it was just another business venture exploiting others' pain.

I am also concern [sic] that you pointed out Obama's comment about the typical white person. There is a typical every kind of person. I challenge you to name any ethnic group where a large part of that group does not hold a bias that has been taught and ingrained. Denying or defending this is disingenuous and hardly opens the door to having a truthful conversation about racial oppression and xenophobia. As a Black woman I will admit that the typical Black person does not trust any white person (our history nurtures this and it does not help that institutional racism reinforces it).

We cannot deny this truth. What we need to do is start the healing process by speaking honestly. 

Another concern your article raised is the comment that "white people usually are not talking about Blacks, Latinos or Asian Americans when people from those groups are not around"; this goes to the root of the problem as identified by these groups … arrogance, disdain and contempt. This is the central theme of white culture that says "we don't have to acknowledge those people or talk about them because they do not matter." Many Blacks have come to accept that large numbers within the "white" community feel this way … we may not matter but we are human beings, and the last time I checked, we share a planet.

The scariest point for me was your declaration that being oblivious is not bad. The meaning of oblivious is clear; it describes one who is lacking active conscious knowledge or awareness or one who is not mindful, that is hardly a compliment …  I have yet to see the word use [sic] in a positive manner.

For fun (and an unscientific experiment) I asked five white persons at my office whether they would consider the word "oblivious" as having a positive meaning. The unanimous response was no.

You are right in one thing, whites are oblivious; however, let's not put a positive spin on failure to care because you one [sic] is indifferent.

We want whites to care because we are humans, it is the dignity of our humanity we want recognized. Until then, you will always have a list of what not to say to whites.

Answer:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I don't think it would be OK if Sen. McCain said the Rev. Wright is a "typical Black person." Or if someone called you a "typical woman." Sen. Obama made a mistake and that's OK--the point is that nobody wants to be called a "typical" (race, gender, disability, age, orientation, sexual identity, culture). I think it's insulting. By the way, we have received dozens of e-mails complaining that we favor Sen. Obama, so pointing out a mistake is fair play.

The article didn't say that not thinking/talking about Black people isn't a concern--it's just the way it is. The point is that there's no general white-people conspiracy. However, there are groups of white people who have an agenda (such as the white people who fund Ward Connerly and Linda Chavez).

Also, oblivious is oblivious. If you had one blue shoe and one black shoe on, until someone pointed it out to you, or you discovered it yourself, you would be oblivious. The shoes are mismatched, that's a fact. Until you know about it, you can't do anything.

We can't deny, however, that some people, once made aware, won't care.

I agree with your last paragraph.

Thanks again for your e-mail.

Click here to send your own question.

Readers' Comments