A Solution to Identity Politics?
Recently we have heard of the Orwellian idea of “multi-racial whiteness,” a self-contradictory concept that even some academics have employed to explain why Trump gained minority support in the last election. It is a bizarre idea that makes Jen Psaki’s “circling back” seem quite reasonable. Below is a story from NPR that explores the notion as if it made sense: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/24/960060957/understanding-multiracial-whiteness-and-trump-supporters.
But even bizarre ideas may have application. Perhaps this idea might have an opposite—call it “trans-white multi-raciality.” If the other idea explains Trump’s minority support, then this notion could explain why white supporters of racial identity politics often seem to hate their own racial identity. But we might be able to get the two ideas to work together. In that way, we may be able to solve our racial problems within months. And dialectic solutions like this are inexpensive. How do we get buy-in from both sides of the political spectrum? That’s easy. Progressives will like it because it is dialectic; conservatives will like it because it is cheap. So these two ideas could supply common ground--at least, after a fashion.
Don’t believe me? My imaginary story below might make you change your mind. The story describes a nutty idea, but that fits right into our current political landscape. In the midst of political chaos, might we find the unity we desperately need for our nation’s future? Let’s see.
Dateline: The very near future; San Francisco, California.
Headline: ACTIVISTS DEMAND ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN THE BAY CITY, BUT AN END TO RACISM MAY BE IN VIEW
Encouraged by the San Francisco School Board’s purging of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington, from the list of approved names for schools, blue-haired SJWs started calling for additional revisions in the city. Advocates for these changes claimed that systemic racism stalked the city streets and parks to make minorities uncomfortable. To justify their claims, they pointed to the names of avenues, recreational areas, and landmarks.
Patrice Korhonen, an activist who is not satisfied with the School Board’s move to rename schools, is a chief spokesperson for the movement. She serves as Executive Director of COHN! (Change Our History Now!). “Renaming schools,” she said, “can only be the first step. We have a lot more work to do. And there will be jobs for sign makers. We have already sent invitations to workers who have lost those Keystone Pipeline jobs. To adapt a phrase, if they can’t lay pipe, then let them paint signs—signs to replace racist names in our municipality. That would be progress.”
Korhonen gave testimony before a supportive San Francisco Board of Supervisors. She demanded action to erase America’s racist history from San Francisco’s streets and landmarks. She faced the Supervisors to affirm that deep cleaning San Franciscan minds could only begin by a thorough purging of the city’s landmarks, parks, highways, and byways of systemic and historic racism. Her audience was impressed.
The Board of Supervisors demonstrated their unanimous support for her views by voting as a body in favor of a non-binding resolution declaring total opposition to American history, the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Things got a bit out of hand, however, when one of the Supervisors introduced an additional measure to have San Francisco secede from the Union and declare war on the United States. At the last minute, the Board President used a procedural rule to avoid a vote and refer the measure to committee for further study.
After the Board meeting, Ms. Korhonen gave the following statement to the press.
“It is simply unendurable,” said Patrice Korhonen. “If Washington is not a good name for a school, then why is it a good name for a park? Children play there. Who knows what damage that could do? Washington Square Park is a statement of white supremacy--right in the middle of the city’s Italian district, no less. The name is bad enough, but you can’t avoid a huge Benjamin Franklin statue stuck in the park’s center. We need to rename the park and haul away that ugly statue as scrap.
"Moreover, we should also change the names of a number of streets. Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington are racist ways of labeling the streets outside our homes and businesses. It is simply white aggression. We need to take action now.”
After her statement, several reporters sought to follow up with her. Journalists asked probing questions such as, “How do you control your more than justified rage?” and “Your stickers, ‘If you disagree, you are a racist,’ are most artistic. How did you come up with the design?”
Finally, a reporter from Fox asked the question, “Ms. Korhonen, you seem to be quite white, yourself. In fact, I have checked your background. You were born in the U.S., but both of your parents came from Finland. Your name is one of the most common in that nation. You are a white European. Why don’t your comments about systemic racism apply to you personally? How can you exempt yourself from your own criticisms?”
Korhonen responded angrily to the question. “You people at Fox never figure things out. Don’t you ever listen to National Public Radio? On one of their reports recently, New York University’s Professor, Dr. Cristina Beltran, explained the phenomenon of ‘multiracial whiteness.’ Simply put, this phenomenon can turn minorities of all colors into white oppressors. It is that simple. It accounts for Trump’s minority support, and it is a dangerous trend, a national threat. And I am here to fight it.
"You see, I am an example of ‘trans-whiteness multi-raciality.’ This is an antidote to ‘multiracial whiteness.’ By using this technique, we can neutralize the threat of 'multiracial whiteness.' For example, it allows me to transcend my white Finnish heritage and to identify as any race that I choose. So I am not limited. Therefore, I can speak about racism with absolute authority."
The Fox reporter responded, “Your answer to 'multiracial whiteness,' Ms. Korhonen, seems promising. You see, I am white, like you. So if I employ the technique of ‘trans-whiteness multi-raciality,’ then I could become a racial minority, just as you have become. In fact, if we could turn this into a movement, successfully recruiting all white Americans, then in a few months virtually all the country will have minority status. With ‘trans-whiteness multi-raciality’ turning white people into any number of racial minorities, America will become racially diverse by definition, and racism will then become impossible. This may finally resolve America’s racial problems and do it within a matter of months.”
“No it won’t,” Korhonen shot back menacingly. “If you do that, then minorities will employ the ‘multiracial whiteness’ strategy. As whites become the oppressed minorities, we will then become the white oppressors and give you a taste of that medicine. You won’t like that. We will make you sorry for your imperialism.”
“But if you do that,” the Fox reporter countered, “we could employ the same 'multiracial whiteness' strategy and become white, too. The nation, of course, would lose its diversity, but we would all become uniform. But that would end the racial problem, too. We would all be the same. We would all be white. We would just come in different colors. But if we continue the cycle and finally chose the ‘trans-whiteness multi-raciality’ strategy instead, we would still be the same, as well as come in different colors. This just might work."
Korhonen drew herself to her full angry stature and then stopped suddenly without saying anything. She paused with a perplexed look on her face, for she suddenly realized that the two strategies would make race so fluid that it would become impossible to tell if a minority was actually a minority or a minority who had become multiracially white. The same would be true of white people. Were they actually white? Or had they become trans-white multi-racial minorities? How could one tell? Race would cease being the key to identity. We’d have to look at people more deeply. Instead of looking at skin color, we might be forced, perhaps, to look at the content of people’s character. This would be subversive to the entire movement.
“Nah,” Korhonen said to herself. “That won’t do. We can't allow ourselves to view people as people. We need something more simplistic, something that will force people to choose sides and generate animosity. Wait, I have an idea.”
She thought for another moment and then looked quizzically at the reporter. She took an uncertain breath and asked, “Just to keep things straight, do you suppose we could agree to wear adjustable armbands to indicate our current racial status? We could then take turns playing victim and oppressor without getting confused.”