What do you think?
Rate this book
SUNY Series: Philosophy and Race
Good White People: The Problem with Middle-Class White Anti-Racism
Argues for the necessity of a new ethos for middle-class white anti-racism.
Building on her book Revealing Whiteness, Shannon Sullivan identifies a constellation of attitudes common among well-meaning white liberals that she sums up as “white middle-class goodness.” She critiques this orientation as being more concerned with establishing anti-racist bona fides than with confronting systematic racism and privilege.
Sullivan untangles the complex relationships between class and race in contemporary white identity and outlines four ways this orientation is expressed, each serving to establish one’s lack of racism:
* The denigration of lower-class white people as responsible for ongoing white racism
* The demonization of antebellum slaveholders
* An emphasis on colorblindness, especially in the context of white childrearing
* The cultivation of attitudes of white guilt, shame, and betrayal
To move beyond these distancing strategies, Sullivan argues, white people need a new ethos that acknowledges and transforms their whiteness in the pursuit of racial justice rather than seeking a self-righteous distance from it.
Shannon Sullivan is Head of the Philosophy Department and Professor of Philosophy, Women’s Studies, and African American Studies at Penn State University. She is the author and editor of many books, including Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance (coedited with Nancy Tuana), also published by SUNY Press.
Building on her book Revealing Whiteness, Shannon Sullivan identifies a constellation of attitudes common among well-meaning white liberals that she sums up as “white middle-class goodness.” She critiques this orientation as being more concerned with establishing anti-racist bona fides than with confronting systematic racism and privilege.
Sullivan untangles the complex relationships between class and race in contemporary white identity and outlines four ways this orientation is expressed, each serving to establish one’s lack of racism:
* The denigration of lower-class white people as responsible for ongoing white racism
* The demonization of antebellum slaveholders
* An emphasis on colorblindness, especially in the context of white childrearing
* The cultivation of attitudes of white guilt, shame, and betrayal
To move beyond these distancing strategies, Sullivan argues, white people need a new ethos that acknowledges and transforms their whiteness in the pursuit of racial justice rather than seeking a self-righteous distance from it.
Shannon Sullivan is Head of the Philosophy Department and Professor of Philosophy, Women’s Studies, and African American Studies at Penn State University. She is the author and editor of many books, including Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance (coedited with Nancy Tuana), also published by SUNY Press.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published May 14, 2014
42 people are currently reading
1630 people want to read
About the author
Shannon Sullivan
25 books21 followersShannon Sullivan is Chair and Professor of Philosophy at UNC Charlotte
She teaches and writes in the intersections of feminist philosophy, critical philosophy of race, American pragmatism, and continental philosophy. She is author of Living Across and Through Skins: Transactional Bodies, Pragmatism and Feminism (2001), Revealing Whiteness: The Unconscious Habits of Racial Privilege (2006), and Good White People: The Problem with Middle Class White Anti-Racism (2014). She is co-editor of several books including Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance (2007). Her book on The Physiology of Sexist and Racist Oppression is forthcoming with Oxford University Press in July 2015
She teaches and writes in the intersections of feminist philosophy, critical philosophy of race, American pragmatism, and continental philosophy. She is author of Living Across and Through Skins: Transactional Bodies, Pragmatism and Feminism (2001), Revealing Whiteness: The Unconscious Habits of Racial Privilege (2006), and Good White People: The Problem with Middle Class White Anti-Racism (2014). She is co-editor of several books including Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance (2007). Her book on The Physiology of Sexist and Racist Oppression is forthcoming with Oxford University Press in July 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
March 5, 2018
Hoowee! What a read! Sullivan used the term white trash over one hundred and fifty times and white supremacy over sixty times. That’s not including Notes, Bibliography or Index. I never expected to see either one in print that many times. It's an academic analysis of race and class aimed at middle-class white liberals in the US who self-identify as non-raciest. I most enjoyed the introduction and chapter one.
Sullivan is Chair and Professor of Philosophy at the U. of NC at Charlotte. The book contents are:
Introduction: Good White Liberals
1. Dumping on White Trash: Etiquette, Abjection, and Radical Inclusion
2. Demonizing White Ancestors: Unconscious Histories and Racial Responsibilities
3. The Dis-ease of Color Blindness: Racial Absences and Invisibilities in the Reproduction of Whiteness
4. The Dangers of White Guilt, Shame, and Betrayal: Toward White Self-Love
Conclusion: Struggles over Love
Sullivan points out that middle-class white people evade responsibility for racism by claiming it as lower class value. She uses the term middle-class to include upper middle-class because the rhetoric holds despite income. “Whoever the real racists are–white slave-holders, white supremacists, poor white people–they are over there not here where the middle-class white people are.”
Well yeah, I’m familiar with the technique.
https://postmediamontrealgazette2.fil...
She points out that the stereotyping of working-class whites and white trash is a redirect from stereotypes about black people.
The scapegoating and othering of white trash reminded me of other philosophical inquiry into the significance of scapegoating. I have it on excellent authority that there is no better place to learn about its cultural importance than René Girard. While I have not studied his theory, I understand that both Sullivan and Girard hold that we must transcend scapegoating for progress.
I can agree in theory, but putting this in practice is more challenging. I suspect that Sullivan’s expectations are a little high and she willfully ignores humanities offensive capabilities. The comments on Youtube give anyone a seat at the table, I don’t want to live there. Task force workers policing internet content are at risk for secondary traumatic stress. In her example African American musician Daryl Davis’ interviews with Ku Klux Klan leaders in their homes, all participants made a good faith effort to shed light on their concerns.
As for “othermothering,” good luck with that! Most people are perfectly aware of the values that they instill in their children and will aggressively defend against intrusion. My friend was covering the morning carpool to school for her child and their classmates. She quit after the other children’s parents complained over her choice of radio station. They did not want their children exposed to those liberal views. So, she threw down the gauntlet and quit in defense of NPR.
I love to hear what other people think about this title.
___________________________________________________________
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
http://hypatiareviews.org/reviews/con...
https://thenewinquiry.com/the-scapego...
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/1...
Sullivan is Chair and Professor of Philosophy at the U. of NC at Charlotte. The book contents are:
Introduction: Good White Liberals
1. Dumping on White Trash: Etiquette, Abjection, and Radical Inclusion
2. Demonizing White Ancestors: Unconscious Histories and Racial Responsibilities
3. The Dis-ease of Color Blindness: Racial Absences and Invisibilities in the Reproduction of Whiteness
4. The Dangers of White Guilt, Shame, and Betrayal: Toward White Self-Love
Conclusion: Struggles over Love
Sullivan points out that middle-class white people evade responsibility for racism by claiming it as lower class value. She uses the term middle-class to include upper middle-class because the rhetoric holds despite income. “Whoever the real racists are–white slave-holders, white supremacists, poor white people–they are over there not here where the middle-class white people are.”
Conflating white lower-class status with white supremacy, middle-class white people use class etiquette to posit poor whites and the white working class as irremediably racist. Middle-class white people thus are able to deflect their responsibility for and complicity with white domination onto white trash, thereby ensuring their own racial innocence and goodness.”
Well yeah, I’m familiar with the technique.
https://postmediamontrealgazette2.fil...
She points out that the stereotyping of working-class whites and white trash is a redirect from stereotypes about black people.
Writing about then-president Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment due to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, Toni Morrison infamously claimed that Clinton was being attacked because of his blackness. As Morrison argued, “White skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.”(72) I’ll set aside the question of whether Clinton is blacker than Barack Obama, who was elected to the U.S. presidency in Morrison’s lifetime. What’s important here is that Morrison is not trying to slander Clinton by emphasizing his trashiness. Reversing the usual valence give to blackness, Morrison’s comment is sympathetic to the president. Even more germane is that it’s not the case that Morrison sees Clinton’s blackness as resulting from his particular views on race or white racism. As Morrison explained in the wake of Obama’s 2008 election, her 1998 claim “was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated… I said he was being treated like a black on the street already guilty already a perp. I have no idea no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.”(73) What Morrison’s remark underscores is the blurring of boundaries between black and white that white trash represents. Clinton’s perceived blackness comes from being white trash: white-skinned and poor, with crude culinary tastes and raised in a defective family in the South.
The scapegoating and othering of white trash reminded me of other philosophical inquiry into the significance of scapegoating. I have it on excellent authority that there is no better place to learn about its cultural importance than René Girard. While I have not studied his theory, I understand that both Sullivan and Girard hold that we must transcend scapegoating for progress.
In my view, racial justice can be achieved only if every group that is party to racial oppression is allowed to be involved in its elimination, and thus inclusion in the name of racial progress should not rely on other forms of exclusion, such as those based on class (and other exclusionary divisions, such as gender, sexuality, (dis)ability, and religious affiliation). This means that even the white people with whom good white liberals often don’t wish to talk must not only have a seat at the table, but also help decide if sitting, standing, stomping, or spitting is the best way to proceed. They cannot be written off in advance as too stupid, racist, or violent to participate meaningfully in the public sphere.
I can agree in theory, but putting this in practice is more challenging. I suspect that Sullivan’s expectations are a little high and she willfully ignores humanities offensive capabilities. The comments on Youtube give anyone a seat at the table, I don’t want to live there. Task force workers policing internet content are at risk for secondary traumatic stress. In her example African American musician Daryl Davis’ interviews with Ku Klux Klan leaders in their homes, all participants made a good faith effort to shed light on their concerns.
As for “othermothering,” good luck with that! Most people are perfectly aware of the values that they instill in their children and will aggressively defend against intrusion. My friend was covering the morning carpool to school for her child and their classmates. She quit after the other children’s parents complained over her choice of radio station. They did not want their children exposed to those liberal views. So, she threw down the gauntlet and quit in defense of NPR.
I love to hear what other people think about this title.
___________________________________________________________
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...
http://hypatiareviews.org/reviews/con...
https://thenewinquiry.com/the-scapego...
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/1...
January 23, 2018
In a way I wish this book weren’t as dense with ideas as it is, but it shows us that this race stuff is not simple or easy. The struggle to understand what it will take to fix this messy problem should make pessimists of us but indeed Sullivan’s book is so thoughtful and addresses so many aspects of American race issues that we also have reason to hope—that people like this will guide a new generation forward with new tools.
Shannon Sullivan's Introduction alone made me want to recommend this book to every well-intentioned white person who thought they want to convey their ‘wokeness.’ Basically she is saying, and I agree, that it’s not going to be so easy as that. We’re going to have to be the handmaidens of this movement, not the tip of the spear. Ain’t nobody so woke they cain’t learn a few new lessons.
When Vance came out with his autobiography Hillbilly Elegy, some critics pointed out that he was tentatively making a larger point about the American political system and poor white country folk but ignored the issue of race. Sullivan dives right in and seizes that nexus of class and race and explains why middle class white folks, the “good white [liberals]” of the title feel more comfortable with middle class black folk than with ‘poor white trash.’ It is because 1) poor white folk embarrass them and fracture the rules of white social etiquette; and 2) the white middle class like to believe they are openminded and that opportunity for black people exists.
At the end of this chapter she makes the point that white supremacists cannot be sidelined if we are to move forward in a democracy. They must be engaged. It is too much to expect that black people would have to engage these folks and still preserve their sense of self, so this may be the role that well meaning white “allies” might have to play: engage these folks. Not what we would have chosen for ourselves, but undoubtedly necessary.
The second point Sullivan makes is that white people cannot wish away their white ancestors, or declare them anathema. We must recognize that those folk operated under different social, political, and economic conditions and that we may have done what they did in the same circumstances. What they did perpetuating slavery was undoubtedly wrong, but we can’t just say, “that’s not us.” We have to concede that it indeed might have been us, and we still benefit from the privileges granted us from that time, e.g., money, status, opportunity. etc.
This point is one white folk want to shy away from, but in fact black writers on race have been saying this for awhile now. We have to acknowledge slavery in the United States damaged the prospects for black folk, and that while we did not do these things, to this day white folk benefit.
There are only four points in this book, but they are very carefully looked at from several directions so that our confusion, fears, or objections, should we have any, are carefully answered. Other reviewers have said Sullivan’s third issue, discussing the “disease of color-blindness,” has been the most influential one in the process of teaching and raising their children. White people have to start talking about race, which for many of us growing up was something well-brought-up people did not do. Talking about race was done by white supremacists or white trash.
That’s over now because it is necessary to talk about race, our own race, in order to acknowledge that our own race is not neutral. It also has cultural habits and color. And in many cases, it comes with its own assumed ‘rightness,’ or first place in a hierarchy of correctness. Black folk, it appears, would prefer we do talk about race because otherwise it is the elephant in the room. They have to deal with the consequences of race daily. It seems right to them that we do, too.
So what Sullivan is able to do is to suggest ways to discuss race and color and the history of privilege with children at an early age. Her researches show, and we ourselves know very well, that children pick up unspoken cues from our behaviors even if we never say a word. She suggests we steer the learning process by discussing race openly, recognizing how it plays out in our neighborhoods and playgrounds, and address it head on. This is especially true if very few black individuals live in our neighborhoods, which can lead to early learning about why that would be so.
Sullivan’s last point addresses white guilt, which is tied in with acknowledgment of the wrongs perpetuated on black folk in American history and abroad. We, good white people all, have guilt. But that guilt is not useful when talking about racial justice. We must jettison the guilt, and/or shame; Sullivan argues that
James Baldwin hoped that black people would not retaliate against white oppressors for one reason only: that it hurts twice. Once when the aggression is perpetrated, and again when it is retaliated against. Religious leaders who were also victims of oppression have been saying this since the beginning of time. ‘Love thine enemies.’ It is what black Christians did after the nine Dylan Roof killings in Charleston, South Carolina at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. White people were shocked. Real Christian values? How can it be? White evangelicals appear to have lost their connection to Christianity a long time ago.
Shannon Sullivan's Introduction alone made me want to recommend this book to every well-intentioned white person who thought they want to convey their ‘wokeness.’ Basically she is saying, and I agree, that it’s not going to be so easy as that. We’re going to have to be the handmaidens of this movement, not the tip of the spear. Ain’t nobody so woke they cain’t learn a few new lessons.
When Vance came out with his autobiography Hillbilly Elegy, some critics pointed out that he was tentatively making a larger point about the American political system and poor white country folk but ignored the issue of race. Sullivan dives right in and seizes that nexus of class and race and explains why middle class white folks, the “good white [liberals]” of the title feel more comfortable with middle class black folk than with ‘poor white trash.’ It is because 1) poor white folk embarrass them and fracture the rules of white social etiquette; and 2) the white middle class like to believe they are openminded and that opportunity for black people exists.
At the end of this chapter she makes the point that white supremacists cannot be sidelined if we are to move forward in a democracy. They must be engaged. It is too much to expect that black people would have to engage these folks and still preserve their sense of self, so this may be the role that well meaning white “allies” might have to play: engage these folks. Not what we would have chosen for ourselves, but undoubtedly necessary.
The second point Sullivan makes is that white people cannot wish away their white ancestors, or declare them anathema. We must recognize that those folk operated under different social, political, and economic conditions and that we may have done what they did in the same circumstances. What they did perpetuating slavery was undoubtedly wrong, but we can’t just say, “that’s not us.” We have to concede that it indeed might have been us, and we still benefit from the privileges granted us from that time, e.g., money, status, opportunity. etc.
This point is one white folk want to shy away from, but in fact black writers on race have been saying this for awhile now. We have to acknowledge slavery in the United States damaged the prospects for black folk, and that while we did not do these things, to this day white folk benefit.
There are only four points in this book, but they are very carefully looked at from several directions so that our confusion, fears, or objections, should we have any, are carefully answered. Other reviewers have said Sullivan’s third issue, discussing the “disease of color-blindness,” has been the most influential one in the process of teaching and raising their children. White people have to start talking about race, which for many of us growing up was something well-brought-up people did not do. Talking about race was done by white supremacists or white trash.
That’s over now because it is necessary to talk about race, our own race, in order to acknowledge that our own race is not neutral. It also has cultural habits and color. And in many cases, it comes with its own assumed ‘rightness,’ or first place in a hierarchy of correctness. Black folk, it appears, would prefer we do talk about race because otherwise it is the elephant in the room. They have to deal with the consequences of race daily. It seems right to them that we do, too.
So what Sullivan is able to do is to suggest ways to discuss race and color and the history of privilege with children at an early age. Her researches show, and we ourselves know very well, that children pick up unspoken cues from our behaviors even if we never say a word. She suggests we steer the learning process by discussing race openly, recognizing how it plays out in our neighborhoods and playgrounds, and address it head on. This is especially true if very few black individuals live in our neighborhoods, which can lead to early learning about why that would be so.
Sullivan’s last point addresses white guilt, which is tied in with acknowledgment of the wrongs perpetuated on black folk in American history and abroad. We, good white people all, have guilt. But that guilt is not useful when talking about racial justice. We must jettison the guilt, and/or shame; Sullivan argues that
“a critical form of self love is a more valuable affect to be cultivated by white people who care about racial justice.”Why? White guilt can be a paralyzing emotion that can impede racial justice. White guilt can inhibit action but also judgment. Racial justice needs people who have some moral authority and can respect people of color enough to disagree with them.
James Baldwin hoped that black people would not retaliate against white oppressors for one reason only: that it hurts twice. Once when the aggression is perpetrated, and again when it is retaliated against. Religious leaders who were also victims of oppression have been saying this since the beginning of time. ‘Love thine enemies.’ It is what black Christians did after the nine Dylan Roof killings in Charleston, South Carolina at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. White people were shocked. Real Christian values? How can it be? White evangelicals appear to have lost their connection to Christianity a long time ago.
“People of color have long been aware of the toxicity of white people’s affections and emotions…Love has not been the dominant affect that characterizes white people.”In her conclusions Sullivan warns good white liberals not to expect intimacy. The white gaze can be like white noise: it obliterates other creative expression. The book is dense with insight, much more than I reproduced here. It should be on everyone’s list of must-reads, along with bell hooks, whose writing you are sure to encounter when you have begun investigating race. Sullivan writes in the Introduction that “perhaps in the future racial categories will not exist.” In the future, augmented and non-augmented humans may be the critical divisors. Skin color would be just another descriptor.
August 16, 2015
I had to give up reading this book in public, because I was fairly certain that when strangers read the title, whatever conclusions they were drawing were probably not what this book is, which is quite simply the most challenging book on race I've ever read. Reading this book was a process of continuously having my ass kicked. But in a very good way.
Sullivan divides her book into four chapters. In the first chapter, "Dumping on White Trash: Etiquette, Abjection, and Radical Inclusion," she makes the case that "good white liberals" have far more in common with white supremacists than we'd like to believe. And one of those similarities is distancing ourselves from "white trash," trying to use them as scapegoats and holding them responsible for racism in America. Sullivan's argument that many liberals fail as true democrats by excluding those we deem "irrational" from the public sphere really hit home. Ouch.
The second chapter, "Demonizing White Ancestors: Unconscious Histories and Racial Responsibilities," is all about critical acceptance and forgiveness. It's about forgiving without condoning or excusing, but understanding. This is probably the most challenging chapter in the book for me. Forgiveness is definitely a skill I still need to work on.
As a parent and educator, I found the third chapter, "The Disease of Color Blindness: Racial Absences and Invisibilities in the Reproduction of Whiteness" most relevant. There is so much in this chapter about talking to children about race. Even when there aren't a lot of easy answers, examples of other parents' struggles with this are both inspiring and affirming. Too often we hesitate to say anything at all unless we can say it perfectly, but Sullivan has stories and studies backing up that even just muddling through yields benefits to children in challenging white domination, and silence, in this like in all things, generally serves to side us with the oppressors.
But in these days of shootings and police brutality, the chapter I've put to use the most often is the final one, "The Dangers of White Guilt, Shame, and Betrayal: Toward White Self-Love." As someone who tries to be a white ally, I feel a responsibility to challenge racist speech and behavior. This chapter has challenged me to think about and adjust my language in these conversations, to be more generous and to more carefully avoid shaming. I am trying to make my motto this sentence from the conclusion: "Dissent born of love seeks the ongoing and improved life of that which it criticizes, not its death."
I marked this whole book up with underlines and sidenotes, despite my usual distaste (not a strong enough word) for marking books. I have a feeling I may be turning to this book over and over again. And I certainly don't foresee parting with it anytime soon.
Sullivan divides her book into four chapters. In the first chapter, "Dumping on White Trash: Etiquette, Abjection, and Radical Inclusion," she makes the case that "good white liberals" have far more in common with white supremacists than we'd like to believe. And one of those similarities is distancing ourselves from "white trash," trying to use them as scapegoats and holding them responsible for racism in America. Sullivan's argument that many liberals fail as true democrats by excluding those we deem "irrational" from the public sphere really hit home. Ouch.
The second chapter, "Demonizing White Ancestors: Unconscious Histories and Racial Responsibilities," is all about critical acceptance and forgiveness. It's about forgiving without condoning or excusing, but understanding. This is probably the most challenging chapter in the book for me. Forgiveness is definitely a skill I still need to work on.
As a parent and educator, I found the third chapter, "The Disease of Color Blindness: Racial Absences and Invisibilities in the Reproduction of Whiteness" most relevant. There is so much in this chapter about talking to children about race. Even when there aren't a lot of easy answers, examples of other parents' struggles with this are both inspiring and affirming. Too often we hesitate to say anything at all unless we can say it perfectly, but Sullivan has stories and studies backing up that even just muddling through yields benefits to children in challenging white domination, and silence, in this like in all things, generally serves to side us with the oppressors.
But in these days of shootings and police brutality, the chapter I've put to use the most often is the final one, "The Dangers of White Guilt, Shame, and Betrayal: Toward White Self-Love." As someone who tries to be a white ally, I feel a responsibility to challenge racist speech and behavior. This chapter has challenged me to think about and adjust my language in these conversations, to be more generous and to more carefully avoid shaming. I am trying to make my motto this sentence from the conclusion: "Dissent born of love seeks the ongoing and improved life of that which it criticizes, not its death."
I marked this whole book up with underlines and sidenotes, despite my usual distaste (not a strong enough word) for marking books. I have a feeling I may be turning to this book over and over again. And I certainly don't foresee parting with it anytime soon.
February 22, 2018
Well-organized, challenging, enlightening, and constructive. This book and author were mentioned in the "Seeing White" podcast series, which is why I picked it up. Between Sullivan's book and the podcast, my perspective on and understanding of whiteness and my own white identity have both broadened and deepened.
(I also pocketed a few tips on how to talk to the white children in my life about race in a way that might set them up to think about whiteness in ways that I, as a kid, did not. I'm especially grateful to Shannon Sullivan for that!)
(I also pocketed a few tips on how to talk to the white children in my life about race in a way that might set them up to think about whiteness in ways that I, as a kid, did not. I'm especially grateful to Shannon Sullivan for that!)
June 2, 2015
Man alive, I haven't read that much theory since Laura Mulvey in college, and that was a long damn time ago. Overall, my reaction was mixed. The first chapter, on the impact of class on whites, the othering of "white trash" and the links to race was fascinating and hugely compelling. After that, though, I generally found the book less persuasive -- though consistently interesting -- and somewhat repetitive. I'm glad I read it, but in some ways wish that first chapter had been the last and not raised my expectation so high ....
November 29, 2015
The best left-wing analysis of racism that I've ever read.
August 10, 2015
Just finished a few minutes ago, so my thoughts are a bit of a jumble. May come back and clean this up later, after I've had more time to process.
Introduction - 5+ stars. Most of the rest of the chapters were closer to 4, but rounding up the book rating because as a whole it is changing how I look at the world and (I hope) making me a better person, which was kind of my goal. The most surprising parts of this chapter were: 1) the introduction to the idea that US racism is sustained on a bedrock of classism-as-deflection-strategy ("we're not the evil racists, it's the poors over there", 2) that white allies are a unicorn (frequently talked about, never seen) and 3) the phrase "ontological expansiveness" which to me seems more meaningful than cultural appropriation, as the concept of trespassing signals why it's problematic.
Chapter 1 is probably the hardest to get through -- I think it took me two weeks while the rest took me a couple of days in total. I blame that on the Kristeva. But it could also be the content, the idea of taking ownership of white identity in a non-supremacist way.
Chapter 2 was eye-opening. Taking seriously the idea of critically understanding white slaveowners and white family histories of racism, it reminded me that people usually have good-to-them reasons for making bad choices. And rather than sweeping those things under a rug to hide from their awfulness, Sullivan advocates taking them out to look at them clearly, forgive when we can, and learn from those mistakes a better way of living. Putting it all on "them" continues the cycle of othering that led to slavery.
Chapter 3 was about child-rearing and how taking a color blind approach merely perpetuates unconscious practices of racism. Once again, you can't defeat racism by pretending it's not there or by othering/scapegoating the lower class. I'd wanted a little more related to dealing with racism in elders, but as Sullivan states, it's easier to teach children than re-teach adults. One question I have is whether there's a term for respectability politics within white communities? Or is that just classism?
Chapter 4 was about the damaging impact of white guilt/shame, and how they operate on a foundation of white privilege and classism, rather than having any positive impact on racial justice. It also dealt with the concept of race traitors, which... I'm from the northern US. Most of the racial messages I've received have been covert, so the thought of anyone actually using that phrase is kind of baffling to me. However, I have had my behavior policed when I'm not performing whiteness correctly, which is maybe the same thing? Or close? Still muddling through this.
Conclusion - still processing. There's a lot here. Quoting the final section, as it's a pretty concise summation of the book as a whole.
Introduction - 5+ stars. Most of the rest of the chapters were closer to 4, but rounding up the book rating because as a whole it is changing how I look at the world and (I hope) making me a better person, which was kind of my goal. The most surprising parts of this chapter were: 1) the introduction to the idea that US racism is sustained on a bedrock of classism-as-deflection-strategy ("we're not the evil racists, it's the poors over there", 2) that white allies are a unicorn (frequently talked about, never seen) and 3) the phrase "ontological expansiveness" which to me seems more meaningful than cultural appropriation, as the concept of trespassing signals why it's problematic.
Chapter 1 is probably the hardest to get through -- I think it took me two weeks while the rest took me a couple of days in total. I blame that on the Kristeva. But it could also be the content, the idea of taking ownership of white identity in a non-supremacist way.
"Rather than cede the meaning and effects of whiteness to white supremacists, whiteness can be developed into an identity grounded in racial justice that is in solidarity with people of color working against white racism."
Chapter 2 was eye-opening. Taking seriously the idea of critically understanding white slaveowners and white family histories of racism, it reminded me that people usually have good-to-them reasons for making bad choices. And rather than sweeping those things under a rug to hide from their awfulness, Sullivan advocates taking them out to look at them clearly, forgive when we can, and learn from those mistakes a better way of living. Putting it all on "them" continues the cycle of othering that led to slavery.
For Southern slaveowners "The two alternatives to [oppressive and exploitative industrial/Northern capitalism] were socialism and slavery, and it was only slavery that was morally sanctioned in the Christian Bible"
Chapter 3 was about child-rearing and how taking a color blind approach merely perpetuates unconscious practices of racism. Once again, you can't defeat racism by pretending it's not there or by othering/scapegoating the lower class. I'd wanted a little more related to dealing with racism in elders, but as Sullivan states, it's easier to teach children than re-teach adults. One question I have is whether there's a term for respectability politics within white communities? Or is that just classism?
"The result [of color blindness] is a strange kind of pride in one's interpersonal cluelessness."
Chapter 4 was about the damaging impact of white guilt/shame, and how they operate on a foundation of white privilege and classism, rather than having any positive impact on racial justice. It also dealt with the concept of race traitors, which... I'm from the northern US. Most of the racial messages I've received have been covert, so the thought of anyone actually using that phrase is kind of baffling to me. However, I have had my behavior policed when I'm not performing whiteness correctly, which is maybe the same thing? Or close? Still muddling through this.
Calling for white people to be constituted by self-love is not a call for them to be delighted about being white racists or benefiting from white privilege. In the mix of negative and positive affects that make up white people--even, or perhaps especially when the negative far outweigh the positive--it is a call for them to nourish their positive affects with regard to whiteness so that a different kind of political and interpersonal action on their part will be possible.
Conclusion - still processing. There's a lot here. Quoting the final section, as it's a pretty concise summation of the book as a whole.
While they cannot do it in a solipsistic vacuum, white people need to figure out new ways to take up their white identities. No one else can live their whiteness for them. So what will they--we, I--do with it? The best answers to this question will be ones that emerge apart from the abjection of white trash, the othering of white ancestors, the distancing strategy of color blindness, and the dominance of white guilt, shame, and betrayal. By developing a critical form of self-love that helps transform whiteness, white people can make positive contributions to struggles for racial justice.
June 17, 2015
This book was hard to get through. I renewed it from the library 7 times. It is dense and full of philosophical lingo. In addition, it presents ideas about whiteness and anti-racism that are different from anything I have thought of before and I am not entirely sure I agree with them. However, I found it worth my time and it gave me a lot of things to think about. There was not much practical advice on how to end racism. I don't know if that is what I was hoping for. But, of course, "How to End Racism," is too complicated and huge a topic for any one book, and was not the title of this book. As for, "The Problem With Middle-Class White Anti-Racism," I think she laid it out quite well. I just don't know what to do about it.
April 16, 2020
cw: racism, white supremacy, whiteness
So I recently finished Dr. Shannon Sullivan's book, Good White People: The Problem with middle
class white anti-racism, and I don't really know how to feel about it.
The main thesis of the book is that basically white middle class people have no idea what they are
doing when it comes to race. I'm sure that doesn't come as a surprise to any of you. The specifics
being that they’re sowing divisions between white middle class people and the so called "white trash"white people, saying slavery was bad without exploring anything else further, good ol' fashioned colorblindness, and the author offers some ways that white people can remedy their understandings of race, privilege, and what they can do to combat racism.
The first chapter deals with shaming lower class whites. The argument Sullivan puts forth is that
middle class whites shame lower class whites in order to differentiate themselves between the
"redneck racist whites" and themselves as non-racist. She also says that the stereotypes there are of "white trash" often parallel those of the Jim Crow stereotypes of black people, specifically being
poor, uneducated, Southern, loud, dirty, etc. Not sure if I really buy this as she mentions for the fact
that middle class whites are more comfortable mingling with middle class black people than "white
trash". I believe she was mentioning this as a historical process of the racial stereotypes simply
shifting to class stereotypes, but I haven't done much background research to confirm that this is a
part of the class division among whites (if anyone could enlighten me i'd appreciate it). Sullivan goes on to talk about how in order to solve the problems of systemic racism that white people need to also be brought to the table in order to understand their role in it all and to work with dismantling it in their own communities. This I agree with. The issue I have with this section is she also mentions that white supremacists also need to be brought to the table. She uses the example of black musician Daryl Davis talking to Klansmen about race, and slowly getting some Klansmen to abandon the KKK altogether. While this is some good work white people could be doing in their communities, this takes a serious amount of emotional labour, time, and determination to do. Also I think this is somewhat disingenuous to POC as racist organizations are always actively planning to hurt them in some way, and to say we just need to slowly “talk it out” while hate crimes are ramping up is frankly unrealistic. The only choice that POC have when it comes to coexisting with white supremacists is that they fight back or die. I think a better use of our time is combatting white racists by defending POC by any means necessary.
The second chapter deals with Slavery and forgiving our ancestors. In this chapter Sullivan
discusses how white liberals tend to disregard slavery as an atrocity that is ancient history. She goes through how slave owners justified slavery as an anticapitalist front to the atomization that was going on in the North that created lonliness, divided families, and devoid of any spiritual connection to others. They viewed slavery as more like the praternal slave holding family “taking care of and looking after” their slaves, and they were all one big happy family. In this regard, Sullivan says this is how slaveholders interpreted their social conditions of the time as Northern industry sought to wreck their “families”. These kinds of attitudes of the legacy of slavery, the confederate ghost that haunts all white people with the threats of keeping “tradition”, still carries on with white people today. Sullivan argues to deny this separation of white history is really only going worsen race relations in the long run (I’m still kind of unclear as to why), and so we must “forgive”, in the since of really understanding the material and intellectual history of slavery, and white people must then work toward dismantling its legacy. I brought all this up to a friend of mine, and he admitted to me that he actually has a great-great grandfather who was Klansmen (my friend is also Jewish, so all that familial contradiction must be really emotionally challenging for him). I told him that he can help clear up that familial guilt by working to dismantle racism in the here and now, on behalf of his ancestors. Did I make the right call there?
Next chapter was about color blindness, which of course is such a humongous topic on its own. I'm
sure there are several books on the subject itself. Sullivan recognizes this and focuses on child
rearing. She mentions that white middle class families don’t really talk about racism at all, which can lead a life long belief that we all live in a post racial society. She mentions how children are able to distinguish race as early 2 years old (with scientific backing), and she goes on to mention a few
anecdotes here and there about children mentioning they don’t like black kids, that black kids are
mean, how in play white children sometimes do not let children of color take certain roles, and a
bunch of other similar incidents. White parents react to this by completely shaming their kids for
saying and doing such things and they refuse to discuss it any further. I personally thought this is a
perfect example of white fragility in real time, with the notion that parents getting upset with their
kid’s perceived racial differences and not helping them understand what they did wrong, instead of
talking through with them the specifics of why they said and do these things, and help them
understand that generalizations are harmful. Another interesting tidbit is Sullivan mentions a study
(unfortunately I forget when and who conducted it) of 3 groups of white families and how they
discuss race with their children. One family was asked to watch a cartoon that focuses on race, and
then after talk to their kids about race over the course of a week. Another group was instructed to
just talk about race with their kids, and the last group didn’t do either. Most of the families withdrew from the study once they knew they had to talk about race with their kids, but for the 6% of families that stayed on, the ones that talked about it with their kids actually found that children have a better disposition toward children who were POC. I feel like this chapter was particularly important because I often never here talk of how racism functions within family units. This chapter was overall pretty straight forward. Although I welcome anyone to correct Dr. Sullivan if she was wrong about anything here.
The last chapter is about white guilt, shaming, and self love. This chapter is probably going to be the most controversial as Dr. Sullivan lays out what white allies can do to combat racism. She puts forth that white guilt is important in the aspect of recognizing the legacy white people are a part of and the white privilege they hold today, but often guilt is an emotion that exacerbates rumination. White guilt stifles white people from taking action and in some ways reinforces middle class whiteness in that being guilty is enough to be anti-racist. White shaming is similar to white guilt, but instead of a more depressive rumination, it instead goes more toward anger and even hatred. The act of shaming sometimes causes people to stick more to their beliefs when they feel those beliefs are being attacked. This is somewhat related to the “backfire effect”, which is a psychological term to mean that biases grow stronger when we are faced with evidence that contradicts our beliefs. According to Sullivan, shaming divides people among races, not getting them closer together. She points out though that there are definitely people who deserve to be named and shamed, but in terms of getting people to take action, it doesn’t really work. This when she starts talking about a “white self-love”, meaning that in order for white people combat racism, they must find a means of redefining whiteness that is one of being open to understanding racism, our place in perpetuating it, and go into the process of healing the destructive power of whiteness. White people must look inwardly, into their history, into their place in society, and understand how their privilege affects the nation. White people need to come together, across class lines, in order to process this spiritual void that creates this othering among white people and faux anti-racism. In order for white people to be truely anti-racist, they have to work in their own communities to quell racial violence and oppositional
attitudes. I do like this sentiment quite a bit as it gives an actual direction that white people, like myself, can do to combat racism. I do wish she gave some more specifics though as to what exactly this looks like, but maybe it's because there are so few examples of this that it's hard to get a concrete historical aspect to it. What comes to my mind is the Young Patriots of the 60s, whose members came out of
white nationalist gangs in Chicago and transformed into an organization that combatted police
brutality and housing discrimination. Along with the Black Panther Party and the Young Lords, they
formed the Rainbow Coalition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_P...
She also mentioned white anti-racist activist Tim Wise as an example of promoting this white
self-love. I honestly don’t know that much about him, so I intend to do more research.
So overall this book is pretty enlightening to me as what a white person can do to combat racism,
and how to reflect on my own privilege and family history. Although I am a bit confused on the utility of the book as much of it seems to be focused on the personal, and i don’t know how white self-love ties into dismantling structural racism. I'm really curious what you all think of this book and whether or not its conclusions and logic are sound.
So I recently finished Dr. Shannon Sullivan's book, Good White People: The Problem with middle
class white anti-racism, and I don't really know how to feel about it.
The main thesis of the book is that basically white middle class people have no idea what they are
doing when it comes to race. I'm sure that doesn't come as a surprise to any of you. The specifics
being that they’re sowing divisions between white middle class people and the so called "white trash"white people, saying slavery was bad without exploring anything else further, good ol' fashioned colorblindness, and the author offers some ways that white people can remedy their understandings of race, privilege, and what they can do to combat racism.
The first chapter deals with shaming lower class whites. The argument Sullivan puts forth is that
middle class whites shame lower class whites in order to differentiate themselves between the
"redneck racist whites" and themselves as non-racist. She also says that the stereotypes there are of "white trash" often parallel those of the Jim Crow stereotypes of black people, specifically being
poor, uneducated, Southern, loud, dirty, etc. Not sure if I really buy this as she mentions for the fact
that middle class whites are more comfortable mingling with middle class black people than "white
trash". I believe she was mentioning this as a historical process of the racial stereotypes simply
shifting to class stereotypes, but I haven't done much background research to confirm that this is a
part of the class division among whites (if anyone could enlighten me i'd appreciate it). Sullivan goes on to talk about how in order to solve the problems of systemic racism that white people need to also be brought to the table in order to understand their role in it all and to work with dismantling it in their own communities. This I agree with. The issue I have with this section is she also mentions that white supremacists also need to be brought to the table. She uses the example of black musician Daryl Davis talking to Klansmen about race, and slowly getting some Klansmen to abandon the KKK altogether. While this is some good work white people could be doing in their communities, this takes a serious amount of emotional labour, time, and determination to do. Also I think this is somewhat disingenuous to POC as racist organizations are always actively planning to hurt them in some way, and to say we just need to slowly “talk it out” while hate crimes are ramping up is frankly unrealistic. The only choice that POC have when it comes to coexisting with white supremacists is that they fight back or die. I think a better use of our time is combatting white racists by defending POC by any means necessary.
The second chapter deals with Slavery and forgiving our ancestors. In this chapter Sullivan
discusses how white liberals tend to disregard slavery as an atrocity that is ancient history. She goes through how slave owners justified slavery as an anticapitalist front to the atomization that was going on in the North that created lonliness, divided families, and devoid of any spiritual connection to others. They viewed slavery as more like the praternal slave holding family “taking care of and looking after” their slaves, and they were all one big happy family. In this regard, Sullivan says this is how slaveholders interpreted their social conditions of the time as Northern industry sought to wreck their “families”. These kinds of attitudes of the legacy of slavery, the confederate ghost that haunts all white people with the threats of keeping “tradition”, still carries on with white people today. Sullivan argues to deny this separation of white history is really only going worsen race relations in the long run (I’m still kind of unclear as to why), and so we must “forgive”, in the since of really understanding the material and intellectual history of slavery, and white people must then work toward dismantling its legacy. I brought all this up to a friend of mine, and he admitted to me that he actually has a great-great grandfather who was Klansmen (my friend is also Jewish, so all that familial contradiction must be really emotionally challenging for him). I told him that he can help clear up that familial guilt by working to dismantle racism in the here and now, on behalf of his ancestors. Did I make the right call there?
Next chapter was about color blindness, which of course is such a humongous topic on its own. I'm
sure there are several books on the subject itself. Sullivan recognizes this and focuses on child
rearing. She mentions that white middle class families don’t really talk about racism at all, which can lead a life long belief that we all live in a post racial society. She mentions how children are able to distinguish race as early 2 years old (with scientific backing), and she goes on to mention a few
anecdotes here and there about children mentioning they don’t like black kids, that black kids are
mean, how in play white children sometimes do not let children of color take certain roles, and a
bunch of other similar incidents. White parents react to this by completely shaming their kids for
saying and doing such things and they refuse to discuss it any further. I personally thought this is a
perfect example of white fragility in real time, with the notion that parents getting upset with their
kid’s perceived racial differences and not helping them understand what they did wrong, instead of
talking through with them the specifics of why they said and do these things, and help them
understand that generalizations are harmful. Another interesting tidbit is Sullivan mentions a study
(unfortunately I forget when and who conducted it) of 3 groups of white families and how they
discuss race with their children. One family was asked to watch a cartoon that focuses on race, and
then after talk to their kids about race over the course of a week. Another group was instructed to
just talk about race with their kids, and the last group didn’t do either. Most of the families withdrew from the study once they knew they had to talk about race with their kids, but for the 6% of families that stayed on, the ones that talked about it with their kids actually found that children have a better disposition toward children who were POC. I feel like this chapter was particularly important because I often never here talk of how racism functions within family units. This chapter was overall pretty straight forward. Although I welcome anyone to correct Dr. Sullivan if she was wrong about anything here.
The last chapter is about white guilt, shaming, and self love. This chapter is probably going to be the most controversial as Dr. Sullivan lays out what white allies can do to combat racism. She puts forth that white guilt is important in the aspect of recognizing the legacy white people are a part of and the white privilege they hold today, but often guilt is an emotion that exacerbates rumination. White guilt stifles white people from taking action and in some ways reinforces middle class whiteness in that being guilty is enough to be anti-racist. White shaming is similar to white guilt, but instead of a more depressive rumination, it instead goes more toward anger and even hatred. The act of shaming sometimes causes people to stick more to their beliefs when they feel those beliefs are being attacked. This is somewhat related to the “backfire effect”, which is a psychological term to mean that biases grow stronger when we are faced with evidence that contradicts our beliefs. According to Sullivan, shaming divides people among races, not getting them closer together. She points out though that there are definitely people who deserve to be named and shamed, but in terms of getting people to take action, it doesn’t really work. This when she starts talking about a “white self-love”, meaning that in order for white people combat racism, they must find a means of redefining whiteness that is one of being open to understanding racism, our place in perpetuating it, and go into the process of healing the destructive power of whiteness. White people must look inwardly, into their history, into their place in society, and understand how their privilege affects the nation. White people need to come together, across class lines, in order to process this spiritual void that creates this othering among white people and faux anti-racism. In order for white people to be truely anti-racist, they have to work in their own communities to quell racial violence and oppositional
attitudes. I do like this sentiment quite a bit as it gives an actual direction that white people, like myself, can do to combat racism. I do wish she gave some more specifics though as to what exactly this looks like, but maybe it's because there are so few examples of this that it's hard to get a concrete historical aspect to it. What comes to my mind is the Young Patriots of the 60s, whose members came out of
white nationalist gangs in Chicago and transformed into an organization that combatted police
brutality and housing discrimination. Along with the Black Panther Party and the Young Lords, they
formed the Rainbow Coalition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_P...
She also mentioned white anti-racist activist Tim Wise as an example of promoting this white
self-love. I honestly don’t know that much about him, so I intend to do more research.
So overall this book is pretty enlightening to me as what a white person can do to combat racism,
and how to reflect on my own privilege and family history. Although I am a bit confused on the utility of the book as much of it seems to be focused on the personal, and i don’t know how white self-love ties into dismantling structural racism. I'm really curious what you all think of this book and whether or not its conclusions and logic are sound.
June 13, 2016
The most important concepts discussed in this book have, I think, been better covered elsewhere, such as Linda Martín Alcott's Visible Identities: Race, Gender and the Self, which Sullivan borrows heavily from. Sullivan's most cogent discussion, regarding "the white privilege of individuality," could have been expanded on at the expense of pages devoted to the dubious merits of discussing whiteness with KKK members or rehashing the sources.
It's been a while since I read Noel Ignatiev, but I don't think Sullivan's criticism that his concept of the race traitor excludes poor whites from the project of abolition is apt, and I think she's on the wrong side of the argument regarding Ignatiev's definition of antiracism, as well. Antiracism does, in fact, assume the objective existence of race.
I should have skipped this book when Sullivan mentioned the "spiritual" approach she would be taking.
It's been a while since I read Noel Ignatiev, but I don't think Sullivan's criticism that his concept of the race traitor excludes poor whites from the project of abolition is apt, and I think she's on the wrong side of the argument regarding Ignatiev's definition of antiracism, as well. Antiracism does, in fact, assume the objective existence of race.
I should have skipped this book when Sullivan mentioned the "spiritual" approach she would be taking.
Read
January 22, 2016Really interesting philosophy book dealing with psychoanalytic theory of race. Sullivan's writing is smart and unencumbered. Reading her ideas made me, as a white person, reevaluate my role in racial hierarchies. One of her most interesting ideas, I think, is about how good white people separate themselves from poor uneducated whites. Poor uneducated whites are seen as the most racist, or the only racists whites. She looks at these poor uneducated whites as a rejected part of whiteness in a psychoanalytic. Sullivan talks about radical inclusion, which is something I'm less inclined to agree with. She says that white supremacists should be included in productive conversations about race. She thinks this is true because they vocalize beliefs that many white people think consciously or unconsciously but do not express.
July 4, 2025
This one challenged me big time. It was a good challenge, and it made me want to write about it just to try to put it into words that will stick with me. First biggest lesson: Do the work with other white people. Have the conversations with other white people. Stop tiptoeing around the tough conversations with other white people. Second biggest lesson: If you consider yourself middle class, do not “other” lower-class white people. You have a LOT in common. "Othering" them is what white racists do with BIPOC. My (incomplete as of writing this) notes are here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V...
Read
October 23, 2024So different from and maybe occasionally similar to White Fragility. Less objectionable than the latter though
August 23, 2019
I really appreciated the way Sullivan complexifies how middle class white liberalism positions poor whites as the scapegoat of white supremacy, so as to exonerate itself. Within this, she ardently argues that middle class white liberalism *is* white supremacy—and I agree. However, there were MANY parts of this book through which she did not say enough about the dangers of white supremacy that do in fact come from poor whites. It was as if she was too quick to exonerate avowed white supremacists just to make her point about middle class whiteness. On top of this, I believe there were MANY points in which Sullivan also co-opted, appropriated, and misrepresented the work of BIPOC. Quite unfortunate.
July 22, 2015
I'm probably the wrong person to review this book. I'm inherently skeptical of sociology, a field which has always seemed to me to deal in generalizations and jargon. Not surprisingly, I found plenty of both in Sullivan's book, along with arguments so convoluted that they made my head swim. I'm certainly willing to concede that this reaction perhaps says more about me than about the book, however.
Sullivan's basic premise is that Good White People (those middle-class white Americans who consider themselves anti-racist) err in several ways. The titles of the four main chapters sum up her arguments: "Dumping on White Trash," "Demonizing White Ancestors," "The Dis-ease of Color Blindness," and "The Dangers of White Guilt, Shame, and Betrayal."
And while I don't buy into all of Sullivan's conclusions, I found some of her ideas thought-provoking. For instance, Sullivan presents white peoples' demonization (on one hand) or defense (on the other) of our slave-owning ancestors as a false dichotomy, in which either choice is harmful; she argues instead for a clearer understanding of they were, coupled with an "aspirational forgiveness." And in any case, the questions she raises are that kind of questions that all white Americans should be struggling with.
Sullivan's basic premise is that Good White People (those middle-class white Americans who consider themselves anti-racist) err in several ways. The titles of the four main chapters sum up her arguments: "Dumping on White Trash," "Demonizing White Ancestors," "The Dis-ease of Color Blindness," and "The Dangers of White Guilt, Shame, and Betrayal."
And while I don't buy into all of Sullivan's conclusions, I found some of her ideas thought-provoking. For instance, Sullivan presents white peoples' demonization (on one hand) or defense (on the other) of our slave-owning ancestors as a false dichotomy, in which either choice is harmful; she argues instead for a clearer understanding of they were, coupled with an "aspirational forgiveness." And in any case, the questions she raises are that kind of questions that all white Americans should be struggling with.
June 16, 2025
The modern left's commitment to portraying anti-racism literature and work as needing to be either a strange pedestalizing of people of color as inherently moral symbols and fodder for the omnicause or a constant expectation of militant self-flagellation and self-censoring on every question or discussion of race that not even the most "susceptible-to-emotional-blackmail" progressive could reasonably maintain has been just as useless for actual racial harmony and understanding as the conservative embracing of colorblindness that purports ingrained socioeconomic prejudices are dismantled by simply pretending like they aren't there and can't be seen. This book is one of the first I’ve read that manages to avoid all 3 of these outcomes and actually speak in theory AND practice to sustainable/equitable/sensitive solutions with a focus on human psychology and the fact that the name-and-shame of progressive activism only reproduces oppressive and prejudiced conditions that we’re trying to prevent.
It's a piece that acknowledges the historical context and painful histories of white supremacy without falling into or requiring a culture of white guilt and its neediness. Very balanced and an amazing and nuanced primer to race dynamics, white allyship, and appreciating diversity rather than fearing it. I think as we see the flip-flop of American politics every 4 years, this book is truly pendulum-swing-proof.
It's a piece that acknowledges the historical context and painful histories of white supremacy without falling into or requiring a culture of white guilt and its neediness. Very balanced and an amazing and nuanced primer to race dynamics, white allyship, and appreciating diversity rather than fearing it. I think as we see the flip-flop of American politics every 4 years, this book is truly pendulum-swing-proof.
“The most obvious difference between white liberalism and white supremacy is that the racial biases of white supremacists tend to be much more overt than those of white liberals, an observation that is not necessarily to the credit of white liberals. The racial biases of white liberals often are more difficult to detect (at least by white people), especially as they tend to operate in the name of non- or anti-racism, and thus they can be much more difficult to challenge than the racial biases of white supremacists.”
“One of the main ways that white class hierarchies operate is through the production and display of white middle-class moral goodness. This is achieved by establishing the moral badness of poor and lower-class white people. Lower-class white people supposedly are the retrograde white people who still believe and act in racist ways; they are the real problem when it comes to lingering racism in our enlightened times. Knowing this, white middle-class liberals know and/or take steps to ensure that they are different in kind than the white lower class, and this process of othering secures white liberals’ status as good. Those white people (the lower class) are racist; we middle-class whites are not like them; therefore we are not racist.”
“Hiding behind color blindness makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see how white privileged beliefs and habits continue to function in one’s life. The result is a strange kind of pride in one’s interpersonal cluelessness. As José Medina explains, color blindness “requires being actively and proudly ignorant of social positionality, which involves a double epistemic failure: a failure in self-knowledge and a failure in the knowledge of others with whom one is intimately related.”
“I will argue that rather than try to create distance between themselves and their racial identity, white people need a closer, more intimate relationship with it if they are going to be effective in racial justice movements. Rather than try to flee their whiteness, white people need to embrace it more tightly. Rather than despise their whiteness, white people need to learn to love it. Ihave in mind here the kind of white love well described by James Baldwin nearly fifty years ago. As he claimed about the United States, “White people in this country will have quite enough to do in learning how to accept and love themselves and each other, and when they have achieved this—which will not be tomorrow and may very well be never—the Negro problem will no longer exist, for it will no longer be needed.” Baldwin brilliantly captures the relationship between the lack of white self-love—white self-loathing—and white oppression of people of color. The so-called Negro problem is really a problem of white domination, and that problem is connected to white people’s inability to acknowledge, accept, and even affirm themselves as white.”
“More significantly, I also disagree that cultivating white people’s shame is the best way to promote white responsibility or to conceptualize white people’s co-constitutive relationships with others, including people of color. I am wary of the claim that a person’s ability to respond to others in generous, enriching ways can be fueled by impoverishing, enervating emotions. As empirical studies in psychology demonstrate, shame tends to be 'accompanied by a sense of shrinking or of ‘being small,�� … [and] a desire to escape or to hide—to sink into the floor and disappear.' This sense of shrinking is not equivalent to humility, which we might very well wish more white people felt. Instead, it is a narcissistic retreat from other people and interpersonal situations into an 'egocentric, self-involved' focus on oneself. In fact, it is not shame, but guilt that is credited in social scientific literature with being 'other-oriented' and 'foster[ing] empathic connection' as long as it is connected with a specific act of individual wrongdoing. Shame’s broader engagement with the entire self leads instead to feelings of worthlessness and powerlessness that undercut rather than enhance responsibility within interpersonal relationships. Shame tends to beat down an ashamed person, and a beaten-down person doesn’t usually have the psychosomatic resources to engage with others in uplifting ways. These are not claims that white people should never feel shame or guilt about their roles in racial injustice.”
“Just as feminist movements need men who are willing to speak out against sexism and male privilege—especially in all-male settings such as locker rooms and fraternity houses—racial justice movements need white people who are willing to speak and act against white racism when they encounter it in their families, neighborhoods, workplaces, and elsewhere.”
April 14, 2016
Very good book, very important learnings for white anti-racism. Uses a lot of academic concepts and terminology but still fairly accessible and not too dense. Some of my takeaways:
1. Don’t “other” other white people (including “white trash” as well as slaveowning ancestors). That’s just a way of cutting off parts of your self. Stay in dialogue with them and be able to accept that they are human beings even while challenging the wrongs they are doing. Be honest and critical.
2. Be deliberate in raising race-conscious (not color-blind) children
3. White guilt and shame are problematic as motivators for change, as they tend to make ppl shut down, get small, or go into “fury of humiliation.” Instead we should develop critical self-love.
1. Don’t “other” other white people (including “white trash” as well as slaveowning ancestors). That’s just a way of cutting off parts of your self. Stay in dialogue with them and be able to accept that they are human beings even while challenging the wrongs they are doing. Be honest and critical.
2. Be deliberate in raising race-conscious (not color-blind) children
3. White guilt and shame are problematic as motivators for change, as they tend to make ppl shut down, get small, or go into “fury of humiliation.” Instead we should develop critical self-love.
August 3, 2020
Read this book as part of a 5 week Sunday School discussion. A lot of interesting concepts, but the book was dense and it was difficult for me to understand. It did lead to thought provoking discussions about whiteness.
March 21, 2018
This book is one of the most transformative books on race that I (as a white woman) have read. I was introduced to this book my senior year of college in my Africana philosophy class. I read a couple chapters from the book for the class, and had the privilege to meet the author herself. She came to our class and discussed her thesis and specifically the chapters that we had read. Now, a year and a half later, I've finally read the whole thing and have had time to digest her thoughts more fully.
First of all, to all of you saying it is a dense book, yes. It's philosophy. And (I'm not trying to sound haughty) it's really less dense than the majority of philosophy I had to read in school. But yes, this is an academic book meant for an academic audience.
I think Sullivan is onto something extremely important in this book. She posits that there is a sickness with white middle-class anti-racism. And this is something I think many have observed in the post-Trump era. white middle-class anti-racism tries to pretend that racism is a lower-class problem. We try to deflect the blame away from us "good" white people and onto the "bad" white trash. However, especially in the post-Trump era, we have to confront the fact that Trump didn't win because of white trash. He won because of ALL white people. Racism continues not just because of white trash - it continues through the actions of "good" white people as well.
Sullivan's response to this is multifaceted. But in a nutshell, she (revolutionarily) challenges white people to confront their racist ancestry by embracing it, and fight racism not through hatred and guilt but through self-love. I find this argument compelling for many reasons. We, as white people, need to love ourselves enough to realize that racism needs to be taken care of on our side of the aisle. We can't paternalize minorities by telling them how to fix racism, and we also can't expect them to bear the burden. White people themselves need to concentrate on raising children as white allies, on fixing themselves and recognizing their own racism, and realize that racism is every white person's burden to bear.
It's easy to see how Sullivan can be misunderstood or twisted to fit racists conceptions of whiteness. I'd encourage any "good" white person to pick up this book with an open mind and to caution against defensiveness. Realize that her mission is to offer a solution to racism that moves away from white guilt and moves towards white reconciliation with its own evil. This book is worthy of a 15 page review that outlines each of the arguments but unfortunately I don't have the time. If you enjoy philosophy, and more specifically critical philosophy of race, this book will confront you. Especially if you are white, this book will make you uncomfortable. But fighting racism will not be comfortable, and Sullivan has helped me re-construct the way I think about my whiteness and how to accept my identity as white while fighting for racial justice.
First of all, to all of you saying it is a dense book, yes. It's philosophy. And (I'm not trying to sound haughty) it's really less dense than the majority of philosophy I had to read in school. But yes, this is an academic book meant for an academic audience.
I think Sullivan is onto something extremely important in this book. She posits that there is a sickness with white middle-class anti-racism. And this is something I think many have observed in the post-Trump era. white middle-class anti-racism tries to pretend that racism is a lower-class problem. We try to deflect the blame away from us "good" white people and onto the "bad" white trash. However, especially in the post-Trump era, we have to confront the fact that Trump didn't win because of white trash. He won because of ALL white people. Racism continues not just because of white trash - it continues through the actions of "good" white people as well.
Sullivan's response to this is multifaceted. But in a nutshell, she (revolutionarily) challenges white people to confront their racist ancestry by embracing it, and fight racism not through hatred and guilt but through self-love. I find this argument compelling for many reasons. We, as white people, need to love ourselves enough to realize that racism needs to be taken care of on our side of the aisle. We can't paternalize minorities by telling them how to fix racism, and we also can't expect them to bear the burden. White people themselves need to concentrate on raising children as white allies, on fixing themselves and recognizing their own racism, and realize that racism is every white person's burden to bear.
It's easy to see how Sullivan can be misunderstood or twisted to fit racists conceptions of whiteness. I'd encourage any "good" white person to pick up this book with an open mind and to caution against defensiveness. Realize that her mission is to offer a solution to racism that moves away from white guilt and moves towards white reconciliation with its own evil. This book is worthy of a 15 page review that outlines each of the arguments but unfortunately I don't have the time. If you enjoy philosophy, and more specifically critical philosophy of race, this book will confront you. Especially if you are white, this book will make you uncomfortable. But fighting racism will not be comfortable, and Sullivan has helped me re-construct the way I think about my whiteness and how to accept my identity as white while fighting for racial justice.
November 28, 2017
A solid read during these troubling times. It's a bit dense / slow to get going, but it picks up after a bit and makes for a decent read.
Since I finished this book, I've been particularly attuned to the ways in which it's problematic to simply write off entire groups of people as "evil." I can understand the inclination, of course, and in no way is the author suggesting that we should stand back and deem the racist words/actions of some as acceptable... But by making huge judgements about "us" and "them," we inappropriately distance ourselves from our own responsibilities in matters of racial justice. I've also thought a lot about the abjection of "white trash" in our society, which is a switch that's hard to turn off once it's on. Several times in the past few weeks I found myself feeling quietly uncomfortable while acquaintances made jokes of this nature that in the past I simply would've laughed along with.
The chapter about what the responsibility of white parents is was particularly interesting. Especially in light of the events in Charlottesville. You know who we can trust to talk to children explicitly about race? Racists. It's important that those who are concerned with racial justice have these overt conversations as well. Kids fill in the blanks, often in ways we weren't expecting, when we avoid discussing things that make us uncomfortable.
Anyway, definitely worth a read.
Since I finished this book, I've been particularly attuned to the ways in which it's problematic to simply write off entire groups of people as "evil." I can understand the inclination, of course, and in no way is the author suggesting that we should stand back and deem the racist words/actions of some as acceptable... But by making huge judgements about "us" and "them," we inappropriately distance ourselves from our own responsibilities in matters of racial justice. I've also thought a lot about the abjection of "white trash" in our society, which is a switch that's hard to turn off once it's on. Several times in the past few weeks I found myself feeling quietly uncomfortable while acquaintances made jokes of this nature that in the past I simply would've laughed along with.
The chapter about what the responsibility of white parents is was particularly interesting. Especially in light of the events in Charlottesville. You know who we can trust to talk to children explicitly about race? Racists. It's important that those who are concerned with racial justice have these overt conversations as well. Kids fill in the blanks, often in ways we weren't expecting, when we avoid discussing things that make us uncomfortable.
Anyway, definitely worth a read.
July 27, 2018
This book is a slog, like reading a textbook. That said, there is a lot of value here. I'm still mulling it all over but I think her idea that middle class folks shaming 'poor whites' and calling them out for racism in an 'idiots!' sort of way mimics racism generally has merit. She also delves into white shame, white love, parenting, and a few other aspects that other books I've read on this subject haven't considered in depth. I recommend it with the caveat: know you are going to be doing some work here but, to me, it was worth it b/c I came out the other end with some good food for thought re: compassion, how to do anti-racism work, etc..
October 11, 2018
This was a challenging read. First it is a highly theoretical philosophy text written for academics-it was hard to read. Second (and this is a good challenge) I felt like it called me out in a lot of ways and will force me to re-examine how I think about myself and my relationship to my own whiteness and my relationships with other white people. I’m left with a lot to think about and probably no one to discuss it with because the book is so not reader-friendly.
October 30, 2017
This is a dense book filled with jargon. It raises a lot of interesting questions but, to my mind, provides very few answers. To be fair, I'm guessing that is the author's intention. I also had a problem with the overall vagueness, particularly in the fourth chapter.
December 22, 2020
While I really like the message and found several useful nuggets to take with me, I struggled with how a book that takes about breaking down class barriers was written in a way to was so inaccessible.
November 7, 2023
i get it. i see the angle. but it aint doin it for me man. a good example of nietzsche without the teeth--literally just doin Zarathustra shit. good intentions. read the book for my Philosophy of Race class. it is a dubious book in many ways, but it is comprehensible and sensibly written.
June 4, 2020
4.5 Stars
June 19, 2020
Great leftist critique of middle class anti-racism. Everyone should read this book at least once.
October 6, 2022
Very easily digestible information, the author clearly lays out how allies can help and that communication, patience, and time can only tell.
April 1, 2017
I read this largely as a counterpoint to Waking Up White; it was suggested in one of the few critical reviews. It's dense and academic; I'm relieved it's relatively short and sticks to four main points. The first half seemed like a reaction to some specific ideas that I don't really subscribe to (distancing oneself from poor whites and from racist history) but did have plenty of good points about the danger of othering people. The latter half contains a great analysis of the problems with white people advocating colorblindness. It's one of the few books I've read, maybe even the only one, that makes a genuine effort to discuss the interactions between race and class. It makes a strong case for the responsibility white people have to deal with the racism of other white people, that it's pointless to be an individual "good" white person.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews