In our discussion, we want to reflect on the position that James Baldwin urged us to review when he said that we cannot view people as collectives, and can only take them, individually, as they are. We have heard this “logic” for the longest time, and yet, if the truth shall set us free, still being captive, can this notion by anything but a notion? We ask, should we take people as “individuals”, and at what point does this theoretical, highly idealised “individual” exist, apart from in the room and space created in, and by our, desperate, disparate, accommodating, apologetic, denigrated, dominated, terrorised thinking? We want to avoid “accusing” and “attacking” people just in case they “turn off” and “tune out” and yet, how far can we go if we adopt this slightly sentimental thinking? Have we no right to our own voices and opinions, even if it means that we are the only ones listening? From the outset, we have seen white people participate in this system, and yet, away from individual deeds which might be equated with group dynamics, our point is, from the moment you identify with whiteness, you have become the problem.
White Privilege is what white people get because they identify with whiteness and yet, the thing to realise is that, like the term Negro, there is no nation or landmass called “whiteland”, other than the figurative, invisible empire. Privilege, however, is an empty term. It means very little as it is not descriptive or informative, and might even imply that these benefits and gains bestowed upon “white” people are things they receive without their consent, and perhaps even against their will. By contrast, the term white supremacy itself implies that white people participate in a system, and are involved in a collective venture which is, in this instance, maintaining domination and colluding in hierarchies of subordination. Also, we need to acknowledge that white is a political identity, and not a racial entity. It is much like the terms “slave” and “master” refer to “legal status” rather than “biological realities”. For this reason, we note that the the term “white” is legal, and has “medical” (professional) ramifications in as much as it enlists people who sympathise with this construct.
We must be suspicious of whites even if not all operate with the racist code, to the fullest degree. Our point, however, is that the white identity IS racist, meaning, the question becomes, how much do they participate in the system, and with what intensity. Even the word system, however, is not our term: we prefer the term regime as it emphasises the political dimension of the situation. There are, evidently, people who tolerate and support the party. System is “Mystifying” with the connotation of mechanical moving parts implying something abstract and remote. There are mechanisms exploited by people, to varying degrees, in differing situations, and yet, the reality is, if you are white, you are drafted into this army and will maintain the regime, the existing disorder, the status quo. We are advised to be discerning, to be on guard, to be suspicious, even if others call this “paranoia,” “prejudice” and racist; we must call it as it is: self-defence, self-protection; self-determination. We are not all “equal”; our talk about friendship is empty; whites must become outraged with this situation, and moreover, cease to dictate the terms of existence to nonwhite people. They must cease to be the rulers (Whites) over the ruled (nonwhites) unless, we will never be one.