Alexandra Wallace, the University of California at Los Angeles student who made national news for posting a racist YouTube attack against Asians, has surprisingly gained much sympathy for statements that threats have prompted her to leave the college. Predictably, attention has gone from Alexandra Wallace’s ignorant racism to the response she has received.
Somehow, this variety of racist victimhood seems like it’s happened before.
When there are outrages, people’s resistance to and rejection of national passivity has traditionally taken a diversity of forms. By and large, most protest is reasonable. Isolated incidents, played up online (“misogyny and death threats” piped one headline; “woman-hating violent responses” offered another), have since become a larger narrative that returns to an all-too-familiar conclusion: sweet white person makes boo-boo, please be nice.
The vague specter of threats has cast Alexandra Wallace as an innocent who made a mistake and has been driven out of school. Somehow the impact on the people of color targeted by her actions and the official intransigence to do anything about bigotry at UCLA is cast aside as people who should know better fret about Internet trolling (itself a small, though persistent part of the Internet since it began) and people who may say not nice things when they are mad.
Fascinating.
If Internet trolling (that practice of saying outrageous things anonymously online) is suddenly a cause for often smart people to write about instead of Alexandra Wallace’s actions and those of UCLA, none — not a single one — have written about the parallel phenomenon of trolls defending Alexandra Wallace for being white.
Among the moronic posts commenting on Wallace’s breasts and such are those applauding Alexandra Wallace for “telling the truth” about Asians; those claiming she is being picked on because she’s white; and others remarking glowingly of her courage as a white woman saying what “all white people” think. Such trolling, depending on where you look, far outnumbers the sexist ignorance, but it is invisible to most people.
Problem is, white privilege trolling can’t and shouldn’t be so easily dismissed or ignored. As with virtually all behavior that seeks to validate actions that normalize whiteness, from said trolling to Wallace’s actions, complex motivations are reduced to faulty judgment and ignorance. People assume Internet postings defending Wallace based on her whiteness are the work of foolish white supremacists, Klan members and the like, who are far easier to dismiss. The truth is more troubling.
NewsOne points out how some newspapers’ websites, established places for the worst trolling, face the problem:
On some stories that are expected to provoke racism, the entire comments section is disabled beforehand, a practice shared by a growing number of newspapers.
On a single day recently, racially offensive online remarks were not hard to find:
In a comment on a Yahoo News story about a black civil rights era photographer revealed to be an FBI informant, someone called blacks farm animals who “were not and are not wanted in this society.”
Another commenter wrote, “We all know who MADE America what it is today, and we also know which group is receiving hefty tax dollar pay outs… so until the tables turn the only thing you should be saying is ‘thank you’ to all the hard working (whites) who gave you the life you now take for granted.”
Several sites, most notably Colorlines, posted again and again about the abuse Alexandra Wallace faced, while never offering similar coverage on racist white trolling on her behalf.
Not that trolling should even be a particular subject worth devoting time to distract people from Wallace’s actions. But if we’re actually basing social and political analysis on anonymous Internet posting, let’s at least cast the net wide.
As for the actual issue at hand, people should remember outbursts of disgust at racism are sometimes uncivil, but regularly get magnified to the level of the rest of the discussion, which is often principled. Indeed some reactions to yet another instance of racism are not pretty, nor are they the norm. Most of the reactions are in fact generally okay. One can certainly conclude mean-spirited remarks aimed at Wallace (and often anyone making derogatory comments online about people of color) are upgraded in importance — even if they outnumber considerate discourse five, 10 and 20 to one – merely to scare or divide people.
Does that understanding justify whatever threats to or sexist mocking of Alexandra Wallace has happened? No. But let’s not pretend such revelations are not aimed — as revelations of naughty behavior by some ‘bad’ people often are — at detracting from the issue of racism and institutional failures.
Moreover, if we are considering the words of a few ‘bad’ people possibly unfairly critical of Alexandra Wallace, what is lost is that some of these responses are undercut by a collective history in which obvious racism receives no sanction, official repudiation or penalty beyond a few days or weeks of embarrassment. Politicians who advocate the murder of people of color, support legislation targeting people of color, and/or who utter racist garbage keep their jobs. Police who murder Blacks and Latinos get paid vacations until they can be brought back on their jobs. Whites who express racism openly might experience some upset, but they’ll largely go on to have the careers and futures they were supposed to have.
Obviously, Alexandra Wallace is not a killer cop or bigoted lawmaker, but the privilege typified in her behavior is something many people of color have witnessed and feel angry about. What person of color does not remember the first time being called a racial slur or having some bigoted characterization thrown in her or his face, and the perpetrator getting away with it? What person of color has not experienced the sting of being called overly sensitive, reverse racist, mean and so on for saying something crossed the line? Such experiences are powerful parts of our consciousness, sometimes affecting our ability to stay in a career, neighborhood or community. Alexandra Wallace is an all too painful reminder that, although she faces shame now, she will have her well-to-do life back in six months, and we’ll still be subject to the prejudices she promoted for the rest of our lives.
Inevitably, some will attempt to assert themselves as mediators (e.g. encouraging people of color to not react badly or, in essence, be good). What must be brought out, if we are talking politically, is that when justice is denied, resistance to racism cannot be the means used, as it historically has, to divide us, obscure accepted racism and push oppressed people back in line.
And, for goodness sakes, quit trying to change the subject, or pretending whites defending whiteness don’t exist.
OMG, I am SO feelin’ this article. Please never take it down. I want to reference it again and again. Thank you.
I believe that racism and sexism should be stamped out in all it’s form whenever it shows itself.
I believe that racist and sexist comments should be like mathematical equations in the sense that 2+2=4 regardless of the race or gender of the person speaking. That is to say that 2+2=4 if the person is black, white male or female. Racist comments should remain racist comments regardless of the race of the person speaking them.
Fair enough, right?
But in America we have inadvertently created a racial and gender double-standard. We, people interested in fostering social justice, have gone so overboard in trying to root out the historical perpetrators of racism and sexism that we’ve unconsciously created a cultural double-standard. In other words: it’s not sexism if we say insulting things about men and it’s not considered racism if we make derogatory comments about white people of either sex.
For example: is it sexist for a woman to say men are all stupid pigs? Culturally the answer is no. No one considers that a sexist comment. Is it racist if a black man says that he has trouble getting promoted because most of the white people where he works are racist? Generally we do not consider such comments and beliefs racist.
Why?
Because we have become so hyper-sensitive to past injustices regarding race and gender (admittedly perpetrated by white males throughout our history) that we have gone overboard trying to “correct” those issues. And by overboard I specifically mean that we as a culture of made it basically okay to “hate” white people. Again my point is that we should be striving for a society in which all races and all genders are treated with equality and respect. We are not currently doing that. What we are doing now is treating all races except Caucasians with respect and all genders with respect, unless of course its a white male in which case, you know, it’s okay to treat those assholes differently because you know they all hate women and most of them are racist.
That’s not equality.
Automatically I can see my Progressive friends rolling their eyes in disbelief. Everyone will readily admit that sexism against women exists in the world. No debate on that. And if I were to ask if Muslims experienced racism in the US again everyone would agree that it’s true and there would be no debate. If I said do atheist sometimes get discriminated against in the US everyone would agree.
Is it possible that white people in general experience discrimination from other races?
Suddenly everyone on the Left (my people) instantly declare in one loud, clear voice “No!” And if I ask them to explain how it’s possible that one entire race magically is free from any discrimination or racism for anyone else on the planet….they offer this confounding explanation:
“White men control most of the world and have most of the wealth, so therefore it’s impossible that they could be discriminated against.”
Ah, but sexism, racism and discrimination should not EXCLUDE any race or gender. White people in general and white men in particular should not be exempt from cultural discussions concerning discrimination or prejudice, should they?
Here’s an excellent example of how our Liberal concepts of sexism and racism have embedded within our shared dogma glaring double-standards and contradictory messages. The easiest and perhaps most irrefutable way to demonstrate the white double-standard is to use the infamous Alexandra Wallace “Racist” rant that has been in the media the last week. In that video she committed 2 crimes that everyone universally agrees are racist. First, she said that she was annoyed by hordes of Asian family members driving up on the weekends to cook and clean for their adult children. Second she pointed out that in her experience the people talking loudly on cell phones and disrupting public spaces happened to be Asian.
Now if racism and sexism are universal and not gender-dependent or race-dependent then Alexandra’s comments should be equally “offensive” even if we substitute “Asian” for something else, right? But as we can see that doesn’t hold up!
Imagine if Alexandra had complained about wealthy white students whose parents came up to their apartments to cook, clean and do their laundry. Would what she said be considered racist? No! Alexandra is white and making a cultural critique about other whites is perfectly acceptable. But more importantly in our American culture ANY cultural critique of white suburban culture is valid and never ever considered racist no matter if a white person says it or if any other race says it. Calling white students — especially wealthy white students — lazy or spoiled is not considered racist by anyone.
Notice how if we substitute “Asian” for “White” her comments suddenly become perfectly acceptable and not racist or offensive at all. Suggesting that twenty-something adult Asian children are spoiled is considered “racist” whereas insinuating that white children are spoiled and lazy is not. A clear double-standard.
What if we change the GENDER of who Alexandra was discussing? What if she didn’t say “Asians” in the library but instead said that the asshole Frat boys and dumb jocks were talking loudly on their cell phones. Would her comments be considered sexist? Would her comments have been considered so “offensive” that her video would generate 35 million views and death threats?
No.
Why?
What happened? Why does simply changing the target of the comments from “Asian” to “Dumb Frat jocks” suddenly make everything perfectly acceptable by everyone, everywhere? Again — sexist comments should remain sexist no matter the gender or the race of the people involved. Yet we clearly see that once we change the race and the gender suddenly (magically?) Alexandra is no longer a hate-filled racist or sexist. Making unflattering remarks about whites or white men specifically is universally considered okay. In fact Alexandra would have received nothing but positive comments from other women for calling these guys out on their boorish and disruptive behavior. She calls Asians rude for talking on her cellphone and she is labeled a racist. However if she calls white Frat boys rude for disrupting the library she is a feminist hero displaying “girl power.”
“You’re forgetting her ching-cong comments! She mocked their language! That proves she’s an evil racist on par with Hitler!”
Wrong. The racism equation doesn’t remain true if we simply change the value “Asian” to “Frat boy.” Because once again if we change the race and or the gender of the subjects she magically stops being “racist” nor would she even be considered sexist.
Imagine if Alexandra had said this, “Not two minutes later another cell phone rings and in the corner I hear ‘S’up bro! I’m a dumb jock whose failing all my classes. Just trying to decide who I’m going to date rape tonight at the Frat house! Duh!”
Would 35 million people have called her an evil sexist? Would she have to make a public apology to the world saying she was sorry for insulting the male athletes of America? No, of course not. Not only would there be no nationwide outrage if she insulted Frat boys or white athletes for being rude, she would be praised as a feminist hero and her blog would be filled with comments telling her to “Keep telling it like it is, sister! You go girl!”
Is Alexandra Wallace a “racist”? No because if we change the race or gender of the people she was referring to she would not otherwise be considered racist or sexist. Her mocking tone? Again if she “mocked” anyone white or made fun of dumb Sorority girls getting drunk no one would care. True racism is NOT gender-dependent or race-dependent!
If simply changing the race or gender of the subject immediately makes it “not racist” then the comment itself cannot be considered racist or sexist. If its perfectly okay to make cultural observations about wealthy white students, or white Frat guys or Sorority girls then, no, it is not racist or xenophobic to make identical cultural observations about Asians.
Hey Chris,
Lots to unpack here. Thanks for commenting.
Two ideas (racism and sexism should be stamped out whenever it shows itself, and a comment is racist and sexist regardless of the race or gender of the person speaking) sum up a troubling departure for U.S. Left politics: moving from institutional analysis to an individualized politic, one in which social ills are rooted not in historical and contemporary power, but in people’s actions and decisions. In such an equation, the kernel seems reasonable — all politics are equal, people are on an even playing field and everyone has the same power — but, in reality, none of that is true. Racism, gender bias and cultural intolerance are persistent. Whites still have institutional power others do not.
Equating a Black person saying he can’t get a promotion or a woman calling men stupid pigs to a white person saying Blacks are ignorant and live off whites are not equal statements. Each individual’s place in the political spectrum is far different. A Black person complaining about discrimination or a woman calling men stupid pigs (in the context of abusive, anti-woman behavior she experiences [let’s face it, people do not say such things in a vacuum] historically does not have power and their statements are institutional (white discrimination and patriarchy) coming back to actions. The white person credits such actions to individuals not the institutions to which she/he has benefited and others have been disenfranchised. Such digs into the whole “Protestant work ethic,” etc., but that may be a longer conversation.
“Ah, but sexism, racism and discrimination should not EXCLUDE any race or gender.”
The real problem of metaphors is that they are incredibly simplistic, and (unintentionally?) geared to support those with power, or institutions generally. Just changing a race and gender and such automatically making something equally racist or sexist ignores centuries of learned social norms, how race and gender operate in the world and how capital ties in to this. In seeking to make every social ill “blind,” we collectively fail to see their true costs and who benefits by making them blind. In this case, it is at the cost of silencing dissent and upholding white supremacy.
Sexism and racism DO exclude race and gender. Racism and sexism particularly are statements about power and institutions (and expressions of such power through individual action), not individuals and their ability to, say, call someone whitey.
“Now if racism and sexism are universal and not gender-dependent or race-dependent then Alexandra’s comments should be equally ‘offensive’ even if we substitute ‘Asian’ for something else, right?”
No, because racism and sexism are not universal, nor are they not gender-dependent or race-dependent. Is there discrimination? Of course. Do people of color occasionally say an unkind word of a white person? Sure. Does such now mean “racism” is now the movement not simply against the forces of white supremacy, but against a Latino thinking whites hurling racial slurs are ignorant? No.
This is somewhat like saying a tiger chases a gazelle and eats it, such is not violent but the order of nature, so a gazelle (because it is similarly a creature in the jungle) is also being true to its nature by eating a tiger.
I absolutely concede many on the Left are headed down this rabbit hole. As a former anarchist, I could blame anti-authoritarian tendencies with articulating an individualized-identity-politics wonderland in which white identity, itself the normative in society, is now to be understood as facing hate and discrimination. But a lot of blame goes around on this one.
I concede the movement to obscure white privilege from discussions of power is one that seems reasonable to many white people, even progressive ones. Unfortunately, one can’t talk about racism, sexism and power without talking about whiteness, and one cannot legitimately claim white discomfort and abuses against Black people is equal. Not historically. Not theoretically. This is a talking point, plain and simple.
“Why does simply changing the target of the comments from “Asian” to “Dumb Frat jocks” suddenly make everything perfectly acceptable by everyone, everywhere?”
Because they are more than words. There is history, cultural awareness to what Asians have faced that, for decades, was overlooked and undervalued. In your view, such “racism” is not right. The trouble is it happened and people’s sensitivities to what people of color today experience, as historically disenfranchised people (which white men are not), is colored by the painful understanding that such stereotypes reinforce power dynamics.
Most people understanding picking on a white man (or woman), however, is generally just ironic: they have power, will have it still after a joke or remark, and comments are generally a product of understanding that their social privileges as whites as earned them their status.
Thanks again for commenting.
M:
Your comment claiming Black men are permitted to be misogynist violates the site’s posted comment guidelines and has been deleted.