Here’s a quote from University of Tennessee law professor emeritus Frances Lee Ansley: ‘By “white supremacy” I do not mean to allude to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily re-enacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.’ we took this passage from an individual who appeared as a guest on the COWS (context of white supremacy.) We use it to give form, and even substance, to this somewhat nebulous phrase. We hear it more, alongside the equally specious talk of “white privilege.” Recently, Dr Coon-Dollar Lump-Sum (aka, Umar Abdullah Johnson) appeared in London and gave a “lecture” in which he mentioned, on a few occassions, “white supremacy.” The problem is, we did not hear him offer any definition of this term so as to suggest that there was an implicit agreement, perhaps decided beforehand, which meant that there was a consensus on the meaning of the term. Sadly, like the Berlin Conference, we were not present at this meeting. That being so, we were lost for most of his talk. Regardless of our reservations, the other people in the audience seemed delighted that someone else was mentioned “white supremacy” and virtually “validating” their existence by “corroborating” the reality of a taboo construct that impacts upon them, despite it frequently being denied.
Such ridiculousness is not new. Many months ago I found myself being interviewed by an “edomite” who was researching inequality – or something along those lines. Along with the Bukwa female that was with me, she asked if we had ever experienced “discrimination.” Not seeing, or reading the game, this female responded despondently. Our interviewer followed up by asking how it felt to be treat “DIFFERENTLY” because of our colour. We need not go further because this totally FRAUDULENT and even CRIMINAL use of language – as a weapon to dominated and confuse – said enough! In using these most inaccurate even deceitful words only served to obscure reality, if not divorce us from it. It was alienating us from our experience of violence by essentially subverting our reality, and invalidating our experience. In saying we are “treated differently” as opposed to “mistreated”, she only drew attention to her relation to the regime. Perhaps she was so removed from our experience that she could not conceive of us being “mistreated”. Maybe she didn’t think he “family” were “capable” of mistreating others, or possibly she thought that as we were not peoples but object extensions of her, we could not, logically, be mistreated in the same way one cannot mistreat their phone by smashing the screen upon dropping it. Ultimately, however, our main concern was with how she managed to “cover up” the operations of other without ever having met them. That grabbed our attention; she knew the routine of the shakedown.
Talk of “white privilege”, fortunately, has been conclusively destroyed by Tim Curry, so there is no need to revisit that, unless we are going to enquire as to why this rhetoric is becoming increasingly popular. We suppose it is popular because it further serves to project the notion that the prisoners and the prison warden are “equal” but for an abstract, evil system which happens to be there. “Privilege” implies that it is simply something harmless whereas “white power” – a power which prefaces privilege and sets the precedent for privilege – suggests a great disparity, and even, dominance. We cannot be equal and yet have one group that is dominant. We cannot have rulers, and the ruled, and yet talk about being “colour blind” unless we wish to maintain the status quo, and thus, ensure it remains in place. Those who ignore it, bring about the same result, and yet, as we cannot be “neutral” within a criminal context, that only exposes the extent to which we can talk about “innocence” on the part of whites. If they just happen to be “white”, they just happen to inherit stolen goods, but, when they cling to these stolen goods and pilot systems that maintain them, we have to be particularly suspicious. We have to go beyond suspicion and begin to organise, asking, how we can bring about a situation whereby we can share in this power, by having access to resources. If these whites block us in our efforts to access resources, we then have to question to which we can be said to be “equal.”