Too Many White People at the Cookout

Jahi Chikwendiu via The Washington Post

There are way too many white people at the cookout, and it's time we revoke some memberships. Black people have to admit that there is too much excitement in finding an ally, friend, or foe who is "down for the Black cause," and it enables us to make our judgment prematurely. Let's be frank; we love a good "old fashioned" overbooking to the Black cookout. We all have our lists of white people that we believe are genuine, without any ulterior motive, in the fight for the progression of Blacks in an oppressive society, and they have stretched from personal acquaintances to social influencers. Some famous social invitees over the past few decades include Prince Harry, Justin Timberlake, Robin Thicke, Robert DeNiro, Gary Owen, and the not-so-much-anymore invitee, Travis Kelce. And to the credit of most of these celebrities, Black people have distributed their tickets based on a by-marriage relationship clause; that is, marrying a Black person automatically grants admission. But what about the white people invited to the cookout by merit? And does it hold up overtime? The answer is no!  

This isn't to say that there are no white allies in the fight for Black liberation; however, there is an influx of white influencers who quickly put themselves in the category of "anti-racist" on a surface level and deeming the self-declaration as "good enough." Genuine white allies understand the history of Black oppression and the present systemic racism that Blacks have to navigate in society. They also understand their privilege and attempt to educate their friends, families, and coworkers on the oppressive structures that continue to disenfranchise people of color. Yet, they aren't the ones, on a large scale, that get the public admission to the "cookout." This is solely because those who are dedicated to the advancement of Black people —yes, Black people still need allies who support this cause— aren't wrapped up in the recognition of doing so.  

They All, Eventually, Let Us Down

It's difficult for us to say someone is invited to the "cookout" based on merit alone. We don't distribute those tickets comfortably; there has to be a reason, and if that reason is merit, then it's clear. Yet, even for the most dedicated white advocates for the Black cause, there is still a consensus that they will let us down. The other day, a friend posted an Instagram story about one of our favorite anti-racist advocates, Jane Elliot, using the "N Word" at a casual social gathering. Kirk messaged him saying: "Bro, I've always had so much respect for her." His response was: "They all, eventually, let us down." This is what it's like to be Black and to have hope in a white ally who operates under the guise of "Black liberation." No matter how "woke" they appear, how aggressive they seem to argue against Black plight, and how forward-thinking they claim to be, there is always that fear that they will "eventually let us down."  

And in the process of letting us down, frequently, it's typically in the context of anti-Black liberation. It was easy for millions of white Americans to shout, post, and protest that Black Lives Matter, but when the conversation about reparations comes up, they're prone to play "devil's advocate." It was easy for hundreds of thousands of organizations across America to establish DEI councils within their agency after the horrific murder of George Floyd. Yet, when BIPOC employees proposed more effective policies for all employees, they were no longer interested in the diversity credit they gave themselves at its inception. 

It's hard for Black people to trust white allies early on because, too often, white "allies" have prioritized comfort with Black people over legitimacy in what they claim to stand for. The same thing is true with Jane Elliot.

White Liberalism: Under The Guise of Allyship

"The liberal element of Whites are those who have perfected the art of selling themselves to the Negro as a friend of the Negro, getting the sympathy of the Negro, getting the allegiance of the Negro, getting the mind of the Negro, and then the Negro sides with the White liberal and the White liberal uses the Negro against the White conservative so that anything that the Negro does is never for his good, never for his advancement, never for his progress, he's only a pawn in the hands of the White liberal. The worst enemy the Negro has is this White man who runs around here drooling at the mouth, professing to love Negroes and calling himself a liberal. It is following these White liberals that has perpetuated the problems that Negroes in America have." 

Malcolm X.

Jane Elliot is an anti-racist and diversity educator best known for her 1968 "Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes" experiment.  She has since awakened white students by challenging them to see life through the lens of Black people in America. It's safe to say that she has operated as a bridge between the Black experience and the white perspective for decades. And even in the intentional work she has done in dismantling prejudice in public spaces, she has succumbed to the comfort prioritization over legitimacy. Not everyone will agree with that sentiment, given Elliot's extensive work exploring and developing anti-race best practices. Still, we challenge you to ask the question: What anti-racist work can be done that would excuse the "n-word" coming out in casual conversation? If anything, wouldn't the fact that it's a much larger issue if a well-known, respected professor who has used bold teaching techniques on white students to see the harsh realities of race could become so laid-back with using the "n-word" at a social gathering?

Given this, it's not hard to believe that this outspoken, unapologetic "anti-racist" professor is also against the distribution of reparations among Black people. Her reasoning isn't different than the typical white supremacist argument against reparations that attempts to muddy the water, spotlight a "more deserving" recipient, and justify that it would be too complicated. Naturally, many would look at Elliot's stance on reparations as a fundamental difference, yet much more is happening. White supremacy doesn't look for Black voices to speak about their plight. Instead, they find white voices who can put them at ease, and Jane Elliot has been tasked with doing just that.  

White supremacy is so bold that it will build a career on the backs of Black inequality and plight, put on an anti-racist shirt, and turn around and openly speak against Black liberation and make other white supremacists comfortable. The Black community doesn't need any more white "allies" who limit their dialogue to the concept of race within the human species as a social construct and a mechanism of oppression; we need genuine allies who are more invested in liberation and progress. 

We don't often discuss white liberalism and the danger behind it, and we need to. Too many white people who are "brave" enough to seemingly stand in support of Black causes are often propped up into positions of influence solely based on their stated allegiance.  These individuals are usually granted opportunities on grand scales, whether political, academic, etc., just because they are represented while also appearing to bridge the gap of inequity and oppression in a way that's digestible to other white people. Yet, not only do they have white privilege, but they also have "white choice," that is, they have the freedom to not genuinely be "down for the cause" if they don't wish to; it's code-switching, a betrayal that unveils the foe. The oppressors who pretend camaraderie and oppress from within its midst can be profoundly insidious.