You see, when the issue of race is discussed, whites are at a disadvantage because so many of them have not done the research necessary to understand just how racism by whites operates. It's because they do not have to navigate through it in order to try to have some semblance of a decent life.
So I will repeat this to start:
"Because most whites have not been trained to think with complexity about racism, and because it benefits white dominance not to do so, we have a very limited understanding of it (Kumashiro, 2009; LaDuke, 2009). We are the least likely to see, comprehend, or be invested in validating people of color’s assertions of racism and being honest about their consequences (King, 1991). At the same time, because of white social, economic, and political power within a white dominant culture, whites are the group in the position to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism.Being in this position engenders a form of racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have little compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought deeply about race through research, study, peer-reviewed scholarship, deep and on-going critical self-reflection, interracial relationships, and lived experience (Chinnery, 2008). This expertise is often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes, such as “people just need to see each other as individuals” or “see each other as humans” or “take personal responsibility.”
White lack of racial humility often leads to declarations of disagreement when in fact the problem is that we do not understand. Whites generally feel free to dismiss informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, seek more information, or sustain a dialogue (DiAngelo & Sensoy, 2009)."
Dr. Robin DiAngelo
The process of racial gaslighting
Omi and Winant’s
Racial Formation in the United States ([
1986]
2014) became a classic text in race and ethnic politics, in part, because these two sociologists provided an innovative framework for understanding why and how racial categorization changes. Racial formation, first and foremost, is a
process: “the sociohistorical process by which racial identities are created, lived out, transformed, and destroyed” (109). Unlike a system – such as capitalism, an ideology – such as colorblind racism, an institution – such as a prison, or even a political era – such as the first Reconstruction, a process does not have particular content in and of itself; rather, it is a web of relationships, perceptions, and social control mechanisms.
In the vein of Omi and Winant’s focus on process, racial gaslighting offers a way to understand how white supremacy is sustained over time. We define racial gaslighting as
the political, social, economic and cultural process that perpetuates and normalizes a white supremacist reality through pathologizing those who resist. Just as racial formation rests on the creation of racial projects, racial gaslighting, as a process, relies on the production of particular narratives. These narratives are called racial spectacles (Davis and Ernst
2011).
2 Racial spectacles are
narratives that obfuscate the existence of a white supremacist state power structure. They are visual and textual displays that tell a particular story about the dynamics of race. For example, former President Bill Clinton gave a speech in 2012 (and again in 2016) in which he lamented the increasing number of deaths among white working-class people,
They could have said these people are dying of a broken heart … . Because they’re the people that were raised to believe the American Dream would be theirs if they worked hard and their children will have a chance to do better – and their dreams were dashed disproportionally to the population as the whole. (Scheiner
2012)
This racial spectacle obfuscates how the white supremacist state power structure actively – since Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 and onward – has kept poor white people poor. If Clinton had said, “white people are dying of a broken heart because the pathology of whiteness is killing them,” then this narrative would
reveal the existence of white supremacy and call into question the role of the state as well.
Racial spectacles may be ongoing cultural narratives that generate media stories and private conversations and, in other cases, are momentary blips in the sea of media stories designed to elicit racial responses. They may become part of a larger, ongoing narrative, or they may fade from view, only to be resurrected 50 years later. Take, for example, the narratives surrounding anti-affirmative action initiative campaigns that began in the 1990s. They used the presumption of white innocence to frame the beneficiaries of affirmative action as undeserving. The synergy created between the public media campaigns and their solicitation of private “everyday opinion” formed a particularly virulent form of racial spectacle that informed voters and thereby created a direct link between the promulgation of these narratives and the creation of law (Davis and Ernst
2011).