White man's burden?

The white people's real burden is to civilise themselves, says this book in a searing indictment of racism in the United States.

WE have heard liberal platitudes for centuries. The lecture halls in Oxford and Cambridge, and in Harvard and Princeton, have resounded with Western liberal humanism and the Enlightenment philosophy. Liberalism and justice are subjects often spoken of in a spirit of concern but lack the underpinning of praxis. This is apparent from the dark history of colonialism and racism.

One of the key ways in which power operates in societies is by setting up groups and versions of the 'other' that can be excluded from the opportunities of support and well-being that society may offer and, at the same time, scapegoated as the cause of social or political problems. Theories of identity politics are crucial within racial politics in preventing the 'other' from being reduced to a victim.

In studying the complexities of identity one must understand that there is a dogmatic or orthodox strain in almost all religions; and yet the Western liberal discourse constructs the idea of an orthodox or superstitious East or a rabidly fundamental Islam or an inferior racial community within its own society. It ignores the independent actions, the humour and the humane strengths of marginalised groups that can emerge in their own right. The most important lesson to be learnt from analysing issues of moral and philosophic relevance to the problem of racism is to try to avoid reproducing the effects of discriminatory power in one's thought. No one has the right to impose one's views on the other. No one can, with any certainty, lay down a universal moral philosophy. The new communitarian thinking can be one way of accepting ethnic debates without sounding ethnocentric.

Behind the hope for a meaningful change lies Robert Jensen's inner strength and furious passion to address race and racism in American society with an insight that is singularly self-analytical as well as militant. In his book, The Heart of Whiteness, which is a reversal of Joseph Conrad's The Heart of Darkness, Jensen ridicules the notion that it is the blacks who are the real problem within the white nation. As he asserts, "It is time for the white America to reverse the direction of the question: How does it feel to be a problem?"

The white nation has to acknowledge that in the 'racial arena' the problem is the whites and not the blacks. Backed by research and personal experience, the book becomes a provocative account of the reality of racism and the bitterness of the contemporary debate over racially charged issues of multiculturalism, welfare reforms and crime in the United States.

For Jensen, race is a category that has evolved through explaining differences between groups by mistakenly attributing "essences" to them. It cannot be denied that people and institutions mete out different treatment to different individuals according to their colour. Since the first arrival of the pilgrims, it has been the strategy of the white race to consciously follow the principle of colour blindness with emphasis on individual rights, freedom and identity. But this has been a camouflage for the exclusion and dominance of the non-white races. Colour blindness has always been synonymous with colour consciousness, the most American of problems.

More white Americans graduate from universities, earn higher salaries, spend less on housing and have better access to health care than blacks. Black unemployment is almost double that of the whites. Interestingly, "a black applicant with no criminal record is less likely to receive a call back from a potential employer than a white applicant with a felony conviction".

Whiteness, for Jensen, is "degraded and depraved, an insane belief that one can find meaning in life simply by virtue of being on top of a racial hierarchy". As Tim Wise writes, "Very few white writers have been able to point out the pathological nature of white privileges and supremacy with the eloquence of Robert Jensen."

Every day, racism in the U.S. has to be brought home to the public who have to wake up to the lopsided privileges enjoyed by the whites that often go unnoticed. You have to deal honestly with "whiteness and the privileges that go along with it; not avoid dealing with it". Those who think that racism has ended have to be given a shaking. As Jensen compellingly points out, "What they [blacks] need from white people is for us to realise we are the problem. They need us to commit to dismantling white supremacy as an ideology and a livid reality. The world does not need white people to civilise the 'other'. The real white people's burden is to civilise ourselves."

The book is simple, straightforward and, therefore, becomes a forceful and convincing indictment of the white race by a white. Jensen has made a clear case for the necessity of the white man's burden to shed its false supremacy. As James Baldwin has emphasised, there needs to be a dialogue between the two communities and "if neither of us can do this, each of us will perish in those traps in which we have been struggling for so long". Such a harsh critique has to be taken seriously, especially in the context of the post-9/11 clash between the West and Islam, another case of racist politics that is an extension of the discriminatory policies back home. Jensen advises his white fellowmen to "hate whiteness and be accountable for our own complicity with whiteness".

Jensen acknowledges that the book is written out of selfishness: "I want to find a way out of whiteness so that I can claim my own humanity." The book is a plea for racial justice and self-realisation of the fact that "whiteness is based on lies. on the whole constellation of practices, beliefs, attitudes, emotions that are mixed up with being white". Falling into the genre of confessional writing, the book takes into account living in a world where the suffering of others is the outcome of unearned privileges. It is this oppression and suffering that brings the "non-whites" together more than their common colour. For Jensen, the binary of white/non-white is politically more correct than "coloured people" because it brings out the oppositional nature of the term whereas the latter expression misses out on the presence of the antagonist.

To fill these gaps, forward-looking radicals should learn to face resistance and have the stamina to "talk race" in order to challenge it in daily life. This is not easy considering the resurgence of white supremacist organisations, which are oblivious of the traumatic effect on the minority culture engineered through a system of beliefs and arguments that disparage black intelligence and de-intellectualise their art and literature. Everywhere we see racial signs that dismiss pressing black issues and place the Afro-American at a racially inferior evolutionary level. To counter this ridiculously biased discourse, the media, the theatre and literature must seriously engage in a reactionary and revisionist programme to alter the prevalent belief that the blacks are inherently inferior, criminal, and mostly come from broken homes. Though it might hurt to talk about the anti-black sentiment, as the rage is so intense, it is vital to the cause of the politics of recognition that society does not delude itself into believing that racism does not exist. It is for this reason that counter-hegemonic race talk is essential to keep a check on white supremacist strategies.

The modern concept of freedom has an individualistic core which is questioned by the marginalised groups. Habermas is right when he says that their "demand for respect is aimed not so much at equalising living conditions as it is in protecting the integrity of the traditions and forms of life in which members of groups that have been discriminated against can recognise themselves". Gender, race and ethnicity cannot be disregarded in the face of complete respect for the unique identities of each individual. Cultural difference has to be respected, though it opposes the West's anti-communitarian, self-centred individualism with its disproportionate focus on individual autonomy.