Posted on 09/05/2013 9:35:46 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
At the New York Times, professor of philosophy George Yancy writes an incisive piece about white people's fear of blacks, which he says is global and has origins in Europe. For centuries, black people have been reduced to constricting and false stereotypes that force them to move through social spaces in a way designed to put whites at ease, he says. "We fear that our black bodies incite an accusation," he writes.
My point here is to say that the white gaze is global and historically mobile. And its origins, while from Europe, are deeply seated in the making of America.
Black bodies in America continue to be reduced to their surfaces and to stereotypes that are constricting and false, that often force those black bodies to move through social spaces in ways that put white people at ease. We fear that our black bodies incite an accusation. We move in ways that help us to survive the procrustean gazes of white people. We dread that those who see us might feel the irrational fear to stand their ground rather than "finding common ground," a reference that was made by Bernice King as she spoke about the legacy of her father at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
The white gaze is also hegemonic, historically grounded in material relations of white power: it was deemed disrespectful for a black person to violate the white gaze by looking directly into the eyes of someone white. The white gaze is also ethically solipsistic: within it only whites have the capacity of making valid moral judgments....
(Excerpt) Read more at theroot.com ...
Those white devils must be up to no good again.
You're not alone...and it goes both ways. A couple at church (Tongan husband/Somoan wife) had a couple daughters that had what I labeled the "minority glare" perpetually directed at white members of the congregation. It made no sense. I've encountered the same from groups of blacks in various places. It's my cue to give them a wide berth. Particularly now with the prevalence of beat down attacks by black mobs.
I think not.
Last week had a very disturbing experience with a back male that still has me very PO.
It's only due to liberal self imposed affirmative action that the author gets paid to write this crap.
And when I worked in customer service...I was sure to give black people even better service because I was always worried if I didn’t run to help them they would think I was racist for ignoring them.
I wanted their money in the till as much as anyone else.....turns out running to give them great service was probably causing the reverse to happen....they assumed I was running to them because I thought they would steal something.
Now I’m in a different kind of job...one that makes me show up on people’s doorsteps when they have a crisis...and of course I only show up because I hate black people if you listen to the comments I get.
This is what happens if you live your life around other people’s irrational beliefs.
UBERSUPERNOVABARFAPALOOZA
No doubt majored in black studies with a minor in journalism.
In a real world meritocracy he would be striking at Walmart or Mickey D's to get a "living wage" and stealing his Mom's social security money.
They must teach that if you use "big" words that people will think that you're smart and they'll pay attention to you.
Indeed, there are insights to be found in this essay. Though not necessarily what the esteemed philosopher or his editor would have you believe.
For example, the above pull-quote. Ask yourself, "Who is he talking about?" Is it not white liberals? They see the "surface" only and ascribe to all blacks certain characteristics -- chief among them inferiority. Liberal attitudes thus constrict blacks to move through "social spaces" in ways that put white liberals at ease. I.e., a certain obeisance...or "plantation mentality".
Given that a Prof. Yancey would necessarily swim in a sea of white liberalism on a college campus, he has accurately described the blacks' highly compromised situation...in this particular context.
Prof. Yancey's problem is that he has probably never met a white conservative -- whom he would approach with his own set of prejudiced predispositions (courtesy of his white liberal "friends").
The pity is that this "conversation about race" can never be had with white liberals -- who are the keepers of the affirmative action gate and, thus, "owed" by blacks, even though they are the purveyors of an insidious racism.
That "conversation" can only be had with white conservatives -- who will a.) listen and b.) respond honestly. Liberals are congenitally incapable of doing either.
But, preconditioned as he is, most of today's blacks don't want to have that critical conversation with us. Instead, they will remain shackled to the white liberal plantation.
The only way you could not notice the racial component to the Trayvon-MSNBC crime wave is if you’re behaviorally conditioned to be stupid about such things. When they’re openly encouraging young black males to be violent (and mercilessly so) against any white person just because the other person is white, how could one miss it?
Something needs to be done to address the problem of these inner city ghettos churning out legions of young males who have zero stake in participating in civilized society. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but we can’t even begin to discuss solutions until this country admits to the problem.
Anyone with an ounce of situational awareness has hackles raised appropriately regardless of color, gender, or species.
Sorry black people, it ain't always all about you.
“And just wtf is the ‘white gaze’?”
I think it’s misspelled: I think he’s referring to the “White Glaze” found on Dunkin’ Donuts.
Is that, like, a racial thing, or something?
Actually they give them to Whitey for free.
Every time meeting someone for the first time early on the big guy would stumble over his feet, drop his pen, notebook, etc. Told my buddy “helps the client relax a bit to see that the big scary black dude is just a normal guy”.
I don't know about the “white gaze”, but whoever it is - if they have a smile on their face and look friendly I can smile right back. If they are all huddled around with sullen faces and watching me, I just keep walking with my eyes gazing at the various “scenery” all about me and my hand near my hip.
You aren't alone at all.
Ya'know, I can hold the elevator for a black colleague at work, joke with a black man at the grocery store and collaborate with people across the globe... but when walking the street and encountering a group of kids be they black, hispanic or white, I open my cover garment and loosen the gun on my hip.
It's not about color.
Another faux intellectual. Procrustean gaze? Total misuse of the language. He should lie in a Procrustian bed.
“I’ve encountered the same from groups of blacks in various places. It’s my cue to give them a wide berth.”
This atmosphere is toxic; most people (rightly) avoid going anywhere they get that hateful glare. De facto segregation; my leisure time is rarely spent anywhere the “glarers” go...
“I was sure to give black people even better service because I was always worried if I didn’t run to help them they would think I was racist for ignoring them.”
I understand what you are describing; at least you tried. I’ve seen too many situations where blacks & whites were held to completely different standards in the workplace, and the blacks would have been justified in bringing suit; somehow they were supposed to adhere to strict work schedules, while IN PLAIN VIEW white female counterparts could do as they pleased. It is wrong, indefensible, and REAL.
Unfortunately, the perceived (versus verifiable) stories far outweigh the true stories.
Unfortunately for this idiot, reality supports the premise he calls unfounded.
Blacks, all over the world, demonstrate a propensity to engage in violence at levels much higher than whites.
So it’s not “white gaze” it’s “black reality”.
I've rarely seen a workplace where the rules are applied equally. Sometimes it's playing favorite (pretty girls being courted), but often it's managerial. E.g a car salesman that sells twice as many cars as everyone else can generally be a little late without a word from his boss. If you aren't producing, you aren't likely to get many breaks with th rules.
“Sometimes it’s playing favorite (pretty girls being courted), but often it’s managerial. E.g a car salesman that sells twice as many cars as everyone else can generally be a little late without a word from his boss. If you aren’t producing, you aren’t likely to get many breaks with th rules.”
I understand this, but these are people delivering the same quality of work (but not the same quantity). The fact that most managers are white might play a role in it, but that is no justification for letting white ladies leave early when their cats sneeze. The salesman is a poor example because often those jobs are one of the purest meritocracies; those who don’t produce (regardless of how many hours they work) make a lot less money than someone who works half the hours yet sells twice the cars.
White glaze is delicious on angel food cake.
And in jobs where you get paid the same amount despite merit, you tend to see the higher performers getting preferential treatment. Why? Because they make the manager's job easier.
Not always the case for preferential treatment, but I'd say more often than not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.