Tim Wise: “White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son” | Talks at Google


FEMALE SPEAKER: Hi everyone. Thanks so much for
coming today. I’m very pleased to welcome
Time Wise to Google today. Tim is an American anti-racism
activist and writer. He’s the author of six books,
including the highly acclaimed memoir “White Like Me,
Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son.” His next book
“The Culture of Cruelty, How America’s Elite Demonize the
Poor, Valorize the Rich and Jeopardize the Future,” will
be released in winter 2014. Please join me in welcoming
him to talk to us today. TIM WISE: Thank you very
much for coming. I’m particularly grateful
that you’re here. Because even though I’ve done
this for a very long time, and now about 24 years of doing
anti-racism work of some sort or civil rights work of some
sort and about 18 of those on the road speaking to folks
around the country. You never really know when
somebody asks you to come in and talk– whether it’s at a
company or whether it’s at a college or a high school or
occasionally a middle school or community group, wherever
it is I go– who’s going to show up. How many people are
going to show up. How much interest there is
in the conversation. One of the reasons in particular
you don’t know that nowadays, maybe even more so
than when I began this work so long ago, is that in just about
every sense, all the other voices in the culture– at
least the majority of them, if not all– seem to be telling you in a
lot of different ways that this kind of conversation
really isn’t necessary. That we really don’t have
to have this talk. That we don’t have to address
issues of race or racial equity in the workplace or in
the school system or the justice system or the housing
market or anywhere else. Because to hear those voices
tell it– and again, you’ll hear this echoed through
the media. You’ll hear this echoed
through the words of politicians and talking heads
all around the country. We’re living in this–
presumably, in their mind– sort of post-racial era where
these conversations, though they were very, very important
a while back, they’re now, like, so 1965 or something. Or maybe even 1995, if
we’re being generous. Or maybe even 2007, if we’re
being really generous, right? But now that we’re in this
post-racial era symbolized, of course, first and foremost by
the election not once but twice of a man of color as
president, you don’t have to have this conversation. I don’t need to give it. You don’t need to hear it. In fact, I remember immediately
after President Obama was elected the first
time, I opened my email the next day and knew there would
be all kinds of wonderful, lovely things that people
would have to say to me. And one of them was especially
pertinent to this conversation. It was all capital letters. So you know you’re dealing
with crazy when it’s all capital letters and they’re
e-screaming at you, as if I wouldn’t have known they were
pissed if they had taken the caps lock off. And the email was something to
the effect of saying, well now, you’re going to have to
find a new hustle, right? Because that’s clearly what
fighting racism is, is just a big hustle to make a lot of
money and get very famous. Because that is exactly what
you would do if you were sitting in a dorm room at the
age of 19 thinking to yourself, what the hell would I
do if I wanted to get really rich and really famous? Oh, I would fight
white supremacy. Because that always
works out well. So anyway, it said, you should
get a new hustle. Because now that Barack Obama
has been elected, clearly we don’t have to have this
conversation anymore. Racism is dead. And you’re going to have to find
some other line of work. Now, if that were only one
voice and an angry email saying that and the day after
an election, then maybe I wouldn’t have taken it very
seriously, just like I don’t take most of the emails that I
receive all that seriously. But unfortunately, that mantra
was repeated, usually in a lot more erudite way than that. Without the capital letters. Without the electronic
or real screaming. But by people oftentimes very
well intended and quite sincere in their belief that
we’re living in this sort of post-racial era where this
conversation is not important. Of course, if we just think
about it for maybe two seconds, we can recognize, I
hope, almost immediately why the notion of post-raciality
is absurd. At least if the only evidence
you have for it is the election of a black
man as President of the United States. If you have other evidence,
feel free to present it. But if that’s the sum total of
your evidence– if that’s exhibit one and two and three
through seven, then you’re probably not a very
firm ground. Anymore so than we would have
been on firm ground if someone were to have said, let’s say, in
Pakistan in 1989, the year after Benazir Bhutto, a woman,
was first elected president of that country, that
sexism was no longer an issue in Pakistan. Patriarchy has been smashed. And this we know, because
a woman is the head of state in Pakistan. Or when Margaret Thatcher was
elected in Great Britain. Or when Indira Gandhi was
elected in India. Or Golda Meir in Israel. Or Corazon Aquino in
the Philippines. So in all of these countries–
you can probably think of others– there have been
female heads of state. We still haven’t had one. So if I were to suggest, for
instance, to my two daughters, who are 12 and 10, that what
they probably really ought to do if they want equal
opportunity as women is pack up their bags and move to
Karachi, my guess is that even the 10-year-old, who has no idea
where the hell Karachi is, would know that the odds
were that wasn’t a good bet. Just because a woman had been
the head of state in Pakistan did not mean that other women
were going to, therefore, have equal opportunity. So we wouldn’t make the argument
about sexism in those countries just because they’ve
had female heads of state. And I would hope that we would
be able to see through the argument about race as it
relates to this country. But it’s very easy to get sucked
into that rhetoric of post-raciality. And I think maybe it’s more than
ever possible in a place like Silicon Valley, where more
so than just about any other sort of industrial
area of America, both geographically and historically,
there is this very widely accepted mythology
that this, more so than any other part of the American
economy and any other part of the geography of the country,
is this pure meritocracy. All those other industries,
no. They’re not really
meritocratic. We know that there are
networks and there’s clubbiness and there’s cultures
that get sort of reestablished and resurrected
and passed on, but not here. There’s no such thing as
clubbiness or insider advantages or networks, or even
a criteria that might itself not be all that meritocratic in Silicon Valley. Well, the smirks on some your
faces at least suggest to me that you’ve thought through this
a minute and realize that some of that rhetoric
is quite well sold but quite a bit overblown. Because ultimately, at the end
of the day, we do have to ask ourselves one very
simple question. When people tell us that this
industry or that industry or that this country or the
overall economy or this particular company is
meritocratic, it then begs the question, right? That if in fact this company
and the larger part of the economy that it represents and
of which it is a part is truly meritocratic, then you would
have to really ask yourself some hard questions about what
that means in terms of who possesses merit in this country
and who doesn’t. Because if you have an entire
area, both of the economy and a geographic region, this being
the Silicon Valley where only about 6% of all the
employees in the various firms and companies here are black and
Latino, and you believe at the same time that this is a
pure meritocracy as a part of the economy, then you would have
to actually come to some very racist conclusions almost
by definition, right? You would have to conclude
that only 6% of the best people are represented by
African American and Latino folk who collectively, in
the country, represent approximately 30% of the
population and in this state, quite a bit more than that. You would have to assume
that there was this real dearth of ability. This real dearth of merit. This real dearth of interest in
having jobs in the growing part of the economy. As if somehow black and brown
folks would prefer to stay in embedded in parts of the economy
that are rapidly dying and leave all the really great
jobs disproportionately to those who were white and of
course, on a gender level and sex level, those
who were male. You would also have to assume
some very sexist things. If you really buy into the
notion of Silicon Valley as a pure meritocracy, you would have
to assume that men are just that much damn smarter. And just that much better at
doing certain types of jobs. Now, there may or may not
be evidence for that. And you may believe there is. But certainly not to the
extent we see the disproportionalities in not
only this sector of the economy, but in old sectors
of the economy like manufacturing, where the same
kind of thing was true. Is it really true that women
were only 1%, 1 and 1/2%, 2% of the people qualified for jobs
in the old quote unquote economy in certain companies,
firms, or industries. Well, probably not. But if you’re going to accept
that premise, understand where it leads you as we try to have
these conversations. If you’re going to assume that
Silicon Valley or that Google itself as an entity is a pure
meritocracy, you would have to assume not only some very racist
and sexist things about certain folks, which would then,
it seems to me, have an impact on how you perceive even
your co-workers who are women or who are people
of color, right? Because if I actually look at
people and think they’re part of a culture or group of people
that are in general not as good, that are in general
not as qualified, how do I really relate to the one or two
that I actually work with? Or the five or six that I
see on a regular basis? How do I subdivide my
brain into the part that says, oh, no. This person’s just as good
as anybody else. But the group they’re from
is really screwed up. Is that actually something
the human brain is capable of doing? Saying on the one hand that
I believe this group to be superior to this group, this
group to be harder working, this group to be more
innovative, this group to be better for this particular kind
of job, but there are a handful of y’all that are OK and
I’ll be able to keep that in mind as I work with
you on a daily basis. And the psychological research
says that’s not likely. So in fact, if we buy into the
stereotypes, we’re likely to perpetuate the very culture
that maintains those inequalities, even if we don’t
necessarily intend to do it. So how would we know if
we were a meritocracy? How would we know if racism were
operating in a company or in an industry? How would we know
if sexism were? Well, those seem like obvious
questions, but they don’t really have obvious answers. Because when you ask them, how
would you know if racism was operating, you ask a hundred
people that, you’re going to have a lot of different
answers. One thing we know from history
is that if you’re really wanting to figure out if racism
is operating, the first thing you don’t want to do– as
a general rule, with some exceptions– is ask
white people. Just being perfectly honest. Just like if you want to know
if sexism is operating, you wouldn’t start by asking men. Just wouldn’t make sense. If you wanted to know if an
industry or a company were discriminatory toward those
with disabilities, right? On the basis of ablism, you
wouldn’t ask the able-bodied. Because when you’re a member of
a dominant group, whatever that is– whether it’s race,
gender, sex, class, sexuality, religion, educational
background, or whatever it might be– those individuals who are
members of dominant groups– and we’re all, in just about
every case, members of at least one or two. Everyone I see in this room
has probably got a mix of identities. Some of which make you a
dominant group in certain categories. Others of which make you a
subordinate or potentially targeted group for
mistreatment and discrimination on the other. When you’re dominant, why would
you be expected to know what other people who
are not experience? It would be sort of irrational,
wouldn’t it, for me as a man to actually have a
keen insight into what women experience in terms of sexism. Now, I might know. I might know. And if I do, it’s probably
because I listened to a woman describe her reality and decided
to assume she was actually sane and not
overwrought, not overemotional, not hormonal. Because apparently a lot of
guys think only women have hormones, which is
fascinating. Testosterone does
nothing to us. Estrogen is a killer. It’ll totally jack you up. Men would not be the ones
for whom you would seek information and insight
about sexism. Not because they can’t know, but
the odds are, that’s not going to be your best bet. Same thing with race and
asking white folks. Or going to white folks are
asking them, do you think there’s racism in
Silicon Valley? Well it seems to me it would
make more sense to start by asking people of color about
their own experiences. And they’re not all going to
have the same opinion on that, by the way. They’re not all going to have
the very same experiences. But in general, it’s probably
a safe bet to say that if we want to know if a problem
exists, the people to whom you would first turn are the people
who were most likely to have to know the answer to that
question as a matter of daily survival. If I want to know if racial
profiling happens in New York, I don’t ask people
on Wall Street. Because even though they might
need to be racially profiled based on their own past
criminal endeavors and activities that have helped to
tank the economy in the last six years, we know they’re
not going to be. And if they spend their entire
time in Battery Park and they spend their entire time on Wall
Street going to really nice restaurants where the NYPD
never bothers them, and you ask them if that’s
happening, they’re probably not going to see it. And here’s the thing. They’re not going to see it even
if they’re good people. And in fact, I’ll go so far as
to say, they’re not going to see it precisely because they’re
such good people in many cases. And I mean that seriously. Like most people, I
think, are good. Most folks don’t want
to oppress others. Most men don’t actually wake up
in the morning seeking to marginalize women. But we manage to do it even
though we didn’t wake up with that goal. White folks don’t wake up with
the goal of reinscribing white supremacy every single day and
subordinating people of color. But the evidence as we manage
to pull that off even if it wasn’t our intention. Why? Because when you’re a good
person, when you have all the right sort of ideas and
ideologies and ways of thinking and you think you’re
very open minded, it’s oftentimes that precise person
who’s the most dangerous. Because it’s that person who
doesn’t want to look at the ugly, right? And by that I mean, who doesn’t
want to look at the injustice that might be in their
community, whether it’s at a company or whether it’s at
the school or whether it’s in a neighborhood or whether
it’s some private club to which you belong. Because if you’re a good,
caring, compassionate person, you look at the ugly and
then you realize you’re on the hook. You actually have to do
something about that. Because you’re a good person,
now you feel like crap. If you were a sociopath, this
wouldn’t be a problem, right? And the good news is– and there
is some– we’re mostly not sociopaths. So make sure to write
that down. Tweet that. Whatever you need to do. It’s like, we’re not mostly
sociopathic, but because we’re not sociopathic, we look at the
pain of racism or sexism or classism or homophobia and
heterosexism, and for people who really are compassionate, we
turn away from it almost as quickly as we turn towards it. Because to be reminded of it,
and to be reminded that we’re sort of in the midst of that,
is to put us on the hook. And we really don’t like
to be on the hook. Because there’s only 24 hours
in a day, seven days a week, 365 in most years. And so as a result, we just
don’t have extra time to deal with all the problems
that we have. And so we turn away from it. So I think the first lesson
when we have these conversations is as glad as I
am to be here and as honored as I am to be here– and I’m
very happy to be able to speak to you and to other folks
around the country. If we’re really going to get to
a place where we know we’ve created racial equity in a
company or in a community, or gender equity in a company or
community or sexual equity in a company or community, it’s
really important that we get to a place where we can hear all
the stuff that I’m saying and I’m going to continue to
say for a few more minutes from the people who
are the targets. It’s fine for me as a straight
white male to stand up and talk about this stuff. And upper middle class with
a college degree, and able-bodied. And here I embody all of these
privileged groups. But until we’re able to also
hear women say it without getting defensive as men and
getting pissed, right? Until we’re prepared to hear
people of color say it without, as white folks,
getting pissed. Until we’re prepared to hear
LGBT folks say it without those of us who are straight
or cisgendered or gender normative getting angry and
upset and pissed off. Then until that happens,
we’re really not in a place of equity. Part of the problem, I think,
when we have the conversation is that we usually are coming
from very different places in terms of how we’re defining
the concepts that we’re discussing. So if you hear that there’s
going to be a conversation, it’s about racism, you
automatically have certain assumptions about what we’re
going to discuss and what that means. And naturally, as good people,
we don’t want to think that we’re implicated in racism. My god, if there’s racism in
my company, then that means that’s on me. But we’re thinking of racism in
a very sort of traditional way when we use that term. And that’s what gets
us in trouble. That’s what, if we had heart
monitors on people, when you say, we’re going to have
a talk about racism. If you had heart monitors,
you’d see the blood pressure spike. That’s what the research– people get very nervous when
they think we’re going to talk about this. And the reason is, they think
they’re going to be called a racist, right? And that if they are somehow
called a racist, that we mean they’re got there Klan robes in
the closet and they brought them in on the bus or the bike
or however the hell they got to work today and they’re going
to the neo-Nazi rally and they are actually skinheads
in disguise. And people make those
assumptions. And so as a result, they
get very defensive. Nobody wants to be thought
of as that. If we had a different
understanding, though. If we had an understanding
that racism is not principally that. That when we’re talking about
racism in the modern era, it’s not that that stuff
isn’t still there. It is, right? And those of us who do this work
long enough, we get death threats from folks like that. They still are around. They don’t actually
ever go anywhere. You call them neo-Nazis, but
really there’s nothing neo or new about what they do. It’s sort of paleolithic
or Jurassic Nazis. They’re decidedly old school. But there’s still around. But that’s not really
the issue. And it’s certainly not the issue
I assume that I need to address in a corporate
setting. If it is, I’m screwed. I need to get the hell
out of here. And we’re all wasting
our time. If we’re actually in a place
where there’s such overt hostility and bigotry of the
nature of hate group activity, then nothing that I can say in
45 minutes, or that anyone could say, is going to
solve that problem. But if we understood that racism
is much more nuanced than that, particularly in the
modern era– it might have always been more nuanced, but it
certainly is now– then we can have a much better talk
without the same levels of defensiveness. So when I use the term racism
and I talk about racism as a problem, I am not presuming in
this or any other company to which I speak, or at any school
where I speak, or community, that we are mostly
talking about malicious individuals who are
deliberately seeking to harm others. Though I know they’re
there, that’s not what I’m talking about. And that’s not what
I’m focused on. Likewise, you don’t necessarily
have to assume a direct intentional
victim or target. So neither the perpetrator of
racism nor the victim of racism has to necessarily do
anything consciously to make the injury take place or to
get in the way the injury. In fact, sometimes we talk about
racism, we’re not really talking about it in the overt
one-on-one I don’t like you therefore I mistreat
you kind of way. We’re talking about in a much
more systemic sense. And just like any ism that you
can think of, just about, is both an ideology and a system,
the same is true with racism. Think about that. Capitalism. Socialism. Communism. Fascism. Authoritarianism. What are these? They’re ideologies. They’re also ways of organizing
a society. They’re also systems, right? And you can sometimes be in that
system even if you don’t accept the ideology. You can be in that system and
by virtue of your actions, perpetuate that system, even if
you don’t buy the ideology. Materialism is a good
example of this. Materialism we understand. If I go to the store and I
engage in some impulse purchase, right? We understand what– I mean, maybe in the
moment, I don’t understand what I’m doing. But later on, I think
about it. I’m like, why did I
buy the candy bar? I didn’t want chocolate. And I didn’t go for the
“People” magazine. What the hell is
wrong with me? But I picked up the “People”
magazine and I picked up the candy bar because why? Well, because the marketers
put it there. The people who actually stage
the stores put it there, knowing that someone’s going
to buy that and be part of this larger system of
consumption and materialism. Of consumerism. They could have put
the chocolate on the chocolate aisle. They could have. There’s a candy aisle
in every grocery. But they didn’t put all
the chocolate there. And it’s not like they just had
some left at the end, and then were like, I don’t know. What the hell do we
do with this? Oh I don’t know. Just put it up near the
place where they pay. Like that was some kind
of coincidence. It was very deliberate, knowing
that even though your mentality– you didn’t wake up
and go, I am a materialistic consumerist hack. I can’t wait to go buy crap
I don’t need today. Nobody does that. But you fall into it. And therefore, that’s
why they continue to keep the candy there. If everybody made a conscious
choice not to do that, they might rethink. But they know that we can fall
into those cognitive traps when they’re trying
to sell us stuff. That’s what companies spend
billions of dollars, including this one, to market stuff. Google spends I don’t
know how much. I know it’s a lot, right? To market stuff. And it works. If it didn’t work, you’d
get new PR people. You’d change your whole
approach and you’re whole strategy. People spend money to convince
people they need this. They need to think this. They need to act like this. Dress like this. Be like this. Own this piece of technology. Own this vehicle. Live in this neighborhood. Because it works. And if you can be convinced of
the kind of computer that you need to have, or if you can be
convinced of the kind of smartphone that you need to
have, or if you can be convinced of the kind of toilet
paper that you need to use so as not to chafe,
because oh god, no. Downy, that’ll never work. Or Angel Soft. No, I need Charmin. Charmin knows if they spend
enough dough that you’ll maybe fall into that. To the extent that they can sell
us products, commercial products, with advertising. How much easier is it, you
think, to internalize over the course of a lifetime all of the
commercials, if you will, that we’ve been given about
race and racial others. All of the commercials that
we’ve been given and exposed to about gendered
and sexual and religious and class others. Because we’ve been seeing that
commercial since we were children, so to speak. Over and over again. And people who are marketers
will tell you, and people that are in marketing and advertising
will tell you, it only takes about 12 commercials
for a particular consumer product before all of
a sudden, you begin to see brand loyalty and you begin
to see an uptick in sales. It’s the law of 12. Some people call it
the law of 11. If they’re really good,
they can do it in 11. But usually, it takes
a dozen commercials. And after a dozen, it’s like,
damn, I need that product. And so ultimately, I guarantee
we’ve certainly been exposed to racial stereotypes
more than 12 times. We’ve been exposed to gender
and class and sexual and religious stereotypes
more than 12 times. Some of it, since we were
very, very young. And so the odds that somehow
that hasn’t stuck to us or that it stuck to all those
other people out there, but not here. Not at this company. Not in this valley. Not in this industry. Incredibly unlikely. Not a very parsimonious
expectation. I would suggest that it’s
probably the case that there’s not such rarefied air. I mean, I’m breathing it. It seems clean in here. You all filter your air very
well, from what I can tell. As opposed to the salt flats
as we were coming in, which were not nearly as nice. But ultimately, the idea that
the rarefied air here is so different that those things that
beset the mere mortals in the outside world wouldn’t
happen here, pretty incredibly unlikely. So if we can let go of
our concern about bigotry being the issue. If we can let go our sense that
to be accused of racism is to be accused of being a bad
person, or to be accused of perpetrating sexism is to
be accused of a bad person. Then, if we can let go of that,
we can have a real, meaningful conversation. What are the ways, you think,
that we can perpetuate, if you will, racism, sexism, other
isms, even without intentionality. Because that’s the stuff that
unless we think very consciously about it, we’ll
make mistakes and not even realize that we’ve done it. The obvious stuff, the answer
is, just stop doing it. But the stuff that’s so
subconscious you don’t realize you’re doing it, or that’s a
matter of systemic practice and you never reflect on
it, is the stuff that goes under the radar. So what are the ways that can
happen with racism, with sexism, or any other ism? I would suggest there
are three ways with regard to race. One is this notion, this real
myth of objectivity. And now I mean this on
a personal level. This idea that we are actually
capable of objectively evaluating the merit of
another human being. I know we like to believe that
we’re capable of this. We really do. You’ll hear people say
it all the time. Well, it’s not racism,
we just hire the most qualified person. As if somehow, there are 310
million Americans and it is capable to rank them from one to
310 million, and then say, well, you were 167,412. You’ve got the job. Or you were 2,000,307. Sorry, you don’t quite
make the cut. Or you were 11. Hot damn. We have found the 11th most
wonderful human being on the planet for this gig. That isn’t rational. But we act as if somehow, we
can just take people’s resumes, take their background,
sit them down in an interview for a few minutes,
and then we can be the sort of perfect receptors
of information, whether it’s their background or the answers
they give us to the questions that we ask. And that we can just filter it
out like a computer with no biases whatsoever. And we believe this, in part,
because we want to. It’s a lot nicer than to think
that we’re incredibly flawed and incapable of really
being objective. But what the evidence very
clearly tells us is that we’re not nearly as capable of it
as we’d like to believe. So that when we think about jobs
and hiring and promotions and evaluation of existing
employees, in just about any company this would be true. At any college in the
admissions office, this would be true. At any graduate school, business
school, med school, law school, same thing. The notions that often affect
who gets hired, who gets promoted, who gets admitted,
what the evaluation of the employee is, are affected by–
those things are affected by the notion of fit. Who does and does not. The notion of qualifications, by
which we really are talking about formal credentials, not
necessarily qualifications. Because qualifications can
be quite intangible. Credentials are very clear
and they’re on paper. And some of them are probably
quite important. Others, maybe not
so objective. But we certainly utilize them. And those are really
the two things. There’s not three. Just fit and credentials. And yet what the research tells
us is that the notion of fit is incredibly subjective,
more so than just about any other concept, perhaps,
in the workforce. Especially in an industrial
culture, in an economic culture, that is its own sort
of the universe, right? Which is true of tech, but
it’s also true of heavy manufacturing in the past. They created cultures,
did they not? And the people that were seen
as fitting in with that culture, they didn’t
all look the same. They didn’t all have
the same story. They didn’t all have the same
education or background or accent or religion. But there was a certain
continuity. Even with the diversity that
existed just in people’s lives and family backgrounds, there
was still a lot of similarity. There were certain expectations
about affect, about dress, about style, about
your hobbies, about the things that you would do. And if those things affected who
did and didn’t get hired, who did and didn’t get promoted
in the auto industry, for instance, or if it affected
who did and didn’t get promoted, who didn’t
get the gig in– forget manufacturing. Think about police departments
or fire departments, where no doubt, the people who were
getting hired for most of those jobs were probably
qualified for them in some sense. The fire department was not
generally picking people who were incapable of
fighting fires. But the idea that they were
actually capable of figuring out who were the 20 best
firefighting human beings in this community, pretty
unlikely. There was all this other
intangible stuff happening. And the research tells us that
the notion of fit is directly affected and impacted by racial
bias, gender bias, class bias, sexual bias, all
of those and a lot of other types, too. And that we tend to see merit
more quickly in someone that reminds us of ourselves. Whether that’s in terms of our
background or in terms of our interest or in terms– it
could be something as intangible as the music
that you like or all kinds of things. Do you do cross fit
or something? I mean, it could be anything. God forbid, right,
it could be that. But the point being that this
notion of fit isn’t really about objective evaluation. And to the extent that it can
be affected by racial bias, gender bias, class bias, all
these things that the research tells us we internalize from
the time that we’re very young, then even when we think
we’re being purely objective and fair minded in the hiring
process, the evaluation process, the promotion process,
we’re not really able to do that. The second principle
way in which we can maintain racial bias– and this would be true
for other biases– is that there’s also this myth
of institutional objectivity. So it’s not just that our
personal biases– many of which are subconscious, according to the research– get in the way of how we
actually evaluate people. That’s part of it. But this other part, which is
even more frightening, is even if we were capable of being
perfect evaluators of other people’s merit, the problem is
the criteria we’re using to determine merit may
itself be flawed. May not be as objective
as we think. So even if we were objective,
the criteria might not be. What do I mean by that? Well, you think about maybe the
most meritocratic merit indicator that there is. What would it be? If you’re hiring, you would
think, well, it seems like the best indicator is experience. That seems fair. That seems objective. That seems like a pretty
good merit indicator. But the problem is when we
determine whether someone does or does not have as much
experience as makes them qualified, we oftentimes set
incredibly arbitrary limits on that or frames around that or
a particular definition of what experience is that is not
really objectively arrived at. I’ve worked with companies
that– I always make the
habit, usually. I didn’t do it this time. But I usually make the habit
of going and looking at the last, like, 10 job postings
that I can find for a particular gig. Just to see what they’re
asking for, right? And you go and it’ll say,
five to six years. Four to seven years. 8 to 10 years. Two to three years. And I’ll go and I’ll ask the
folks I’m working with, like, OK, where did you
get that number? Why four to six? Why not three years,
four months, two weeks, and an afternoon? Why? What was the actual objective? Other than just picking a
nice, round number, what evidence do you have
the four to six is really what’s necessary? And that if you only had three
and a half, you’d be screwed for another half a year? No, you have to wait six more
months, and then come back and it’ll be fine. And every time I’ve asked that
question, why this criteria as opposed to that one, without
exception there’s never been an objective evaluation. There’s never been what’s called
a reliability analysis in this work done to determine
that this is really necessary and without this, you’re likely
to fail at this job. Usually it’s because that’s
what the last guy– and it usually is a guy–
had to have. So that’s what– by God, that’s
what I had to have. And if I had to jump through
those hoops, you’re going to jump through those hoops. That’s what’s called
a positional good. It’s something that I have, you
want it, and I’m going to make damn sure that you have
go through all the same troubles that I did in
order to get it. Now, the positional good may be
valuable as a criteria, or it may be really strange. So for instance, most of the
time, college professors have to have a Ph.D., certainly
to be tenure in most institutions. And that might make sense. But then you have to actually
ask yourself, well, what makes a person get a Ph.D.? What you do to get a Ph.D.? Because it seems objective. It seems fair. It’s the highest level you can
get in most fields, unless you get a J.D. or something, some
other type of specialized professional degree. But is it really objective? Well, let’s think about it. How do you get a Ph.D.? You get a Ph.D. usually writing
a dissertation, which is you write a really
long paper on a very narrow subject. It’s not like you’re doing
a survey of your entire subject matter. You’re picking a really
narrow, finite area. So Newt Gingrich, for example,
has a Ph.D. Now, I could end the joke right there in some
regards, I suppose. But he has one. He has one, actually, from my
Alma mater, which I’m not overwhelmingly happy about. But it is what it is. And he has his Ph.D.
in history. He got this Ph.D. in history
because he wrote a dissertation. Fantastic. That’s what you do. And because he has a Ph.D., if
Newt Gingrich wanted to be a history professor at any college
in this country, he could probably– he probably also could do
that because he was the Speaker of the House. So that probably would help. But even if he hadn’t done that,
just the Ph.D. would probably qualify him in the eyes
of most for being hired. And yet, what was
his Ph.D. in? Well, it was history. But how did he get it? He wrote a dissertation. What was it about? It was about Belgian
educational policy in the Congo. Fascinating. And I suppose if you’re a
historian of the Belgian Congo, that is a very
important subject. And if you were going to teach a
class on Belgian educational policy in the Congo, I don’t
have any doubt, Newt Gingrich is probably your guy. And that’s actually arguable,
because when he did his Ph.D. in Belgian educational policy
in the Congo, he didn’t actually interview any black
folks from the Congo. He just interviewed
people in Belgium. So even then, you might
say, he’s not really that much of an expert. But we’ll just cut him slack
for the sake of argument because I’m feeling generous,
and we’ll say that if you were going to teach a class on that
subject, he probably knows more about it than
a lot of people. But does that mean that he’s
more qualified to teach, like, a US history 1865 to the
present survey class? Not necessarily. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. So even a really seemingly
objective criteria like that can get us in trouble unless
we dig deeper. And the same is true with
credentials generally, for one very simple reason. How we get them isn’t just about
a fair race in which everyone has started at the very
same point and has the finish line in front of them,
and then whoever is the fastest runner gets there. We’re talking about a larger
system of job networking and job opportunities in which some
people have had three lap head start in a eight lap race,
or five lab head starts, or even just a half a lap
head start, right? If I’ve had even a little bit
of a head start on you and we’re running a race, I’m
supposed to cross the finish line first. That’s sort of how that works. And in fact, if I have a head
start on you and I don’t cross the finish line first, there’s
something wrong with me. I’m not as fast a runner. If I have a five lap head start
in a eight lap race and when the race is over,
I’m only ahead by three, I still won. But you’re the faster runner. So if you were trying to pick
people for a track team, you would want the person who made
up ground and closed the gap in terms of achievement, rather
than the person who just hit the tape first. When we talk about jobs, it’s
not quite like a race. But it’s not altogether
different either. Because none of us are sort of
just starting from scratch. Unless it’s your very first job,
and even then you’re not starting from scratch because
you went to school somewhere. And even that wasn’t scratch,
because you had a family and they had a certain set of
opportunities or lack thereof. So in a sense, we’re constantly
inheriting these eight lap relay races. But we’re not inheriting
the starting line at the very same point. And so if we’re going to
evaluate who’s the most qualified and we’re looking only
at the tape at the end of the race, which is what the
resume, in a sense, represents. The resume, the job references,
the application that you fill out, that’s the
end result of whatever you’ve done before, which is great. Just like the eighth lap. And the tape is the end
result of the race. But unless I know all the stuff
that happened in lap seven, six, five, four, three,
two, and one– or at least some of the stuff. I’m not going to maybe
know all of it. But if I don’t know any of it,
am I really likely to make a really excellent, objective,
fair decision at the end about who the most qualified
person is? Well, I might get lucky. But I could also be horribly
wrong if what I’m seeing is just the detritus of
an opportunity structure that’s unequal. Which is to say that both
ethically and practically, we need to rethink the
notion of merit. Ethically, of course, because
that means a lot of people who might be the best are being
left by the side. Not because they are any less
capable, but just because maybe they don’t know
the right people. They haven’t been in the
pipeline as long so they don’t have the same credentials. But also because it hurts
institutional integrity. If a company’s trying to
actually find the best people, which I think makes sense as
long as we have an expansive capacious understanding of what
“the best people” means, then they would want, I would
think, to have a criteria that was less likely to produce
outcome based decisions that were the end of the
eighth lap. The tape at the end
of the race. That they would want to have as
expansive a notion of merit as possible. And as holistic a way of
assessing merit so as to get the best people. Not only to be fair. That’s part of it. But also to make sure that they
actually do, in fact, get the best people for the job. The final problem that
perpetuates injustice that corporate folks need to think
about, educators need to think about, and all of us, really, in
the country to think about, is what I would suggest as color
blind formalism would be the term that I guess
I would use. And what I mean by color blind
formalism is this very formal, very formulaic way in which we
just don’t talk about race and we don’t think about race. Or we act as if we
don’t see it. So when we talk about racism,
that’s what people will say as their first line of defense. Well, I don’t even see color. I don’t think about color. Well, that may be the problem. If you don’t think about color
in a world in which color matters, ten you’re going to
miss an awful lot of stuff. It’d be like saying, well,
I’m ability blind. I don’t notice disability. Now, think about that. The Americans with
Disabilities Act was passed in 1991. And if anyone said, well, our
goal is to be disability blind, well then how the hell
are you going to build a ramp? You’re not going to build a
ramp for folks in chairs because I’m not noticing,
because I didn’t even see you were in a chair. Ergonomic workplaces,
what the hell? I don’t know anything
about that. You need a certain width
of the door? I don’t know. Why would I do that? Elevators? I’m not noticing that
you’re disabled. All the different things that
come with disability. If I’m not noticing, then the
odds are I’m not going to take the kind of steps that I need
to ensure that you actually have equity of opportunity
in treatment. And then I’m going to pretend
that I’ve been really innocent and kind and nice. Like, oh, but I didn’t
even see you. Yes, exactly. And that’s why you didn’t make
the workspace more functional for me and others like me. The same is true with
race or gender, sexuality or anything else. If you’re going to create real
equal opportunity, you have to take a not color blind or gender
blind or sex blind or sexuality blind or any
blind approach. You have to take a very color
conscious, gender conscious, sex conscious approach that
actually looks at the way that these dynamics oftentimes skew
our own judgments and skew the very criteria that
we are using. To be blind to color, as Julian
Bond, civil rights legend, puts it is to be blind
to the consequences of color. So if the consequences of color
are still quite real, being colorblind means we take
a very passive approach. We just take it as they come. Lots of times folks will say,
we’ll hire whoever walks through the door who’s
most qualified. The problem being, if certain
people know the location of that door and they know which
way the door turns and they know the combination code to
get through that door, then they’re going to have
a much easier time. Or if somebody just simply
thinks that behind the door will lie rejection, right? So imagine if you’re a member–
and like I said, all of us in here are at some point
probably members of dominate groups and also members
of subordinate groups. I’ve rarely met anyone who was
only a dominant group, that every one of their identities
was dominant. And I’ve never met anyone
who’s every identity was non dominant. Could happen, but it’s rare. So when you’re a member of a
dominant group, if you think about being anything but that,
what it would be like to go to a place where you were so
incredibly under represented. And you’re making assumptions
in you’re own head about why that might be. You’re assuming, well, maybe
it’s overt racism, sexism, classism, et cetera. Or maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s just subtle bias. Or maybe it’s just the culture
of this institution is going to be off putting and they don’t
really think that I fit. So if they don’t think I fit,
I’m not even going to try. Which gets to the heart
of the problem. Sometimes in Silicon Valley,
where people will say, well, there’s just not enough
qualified fill in the blank. Not enough qualified women
in this kind of work. Not enough qualified people of
color in this kind of work. A, that’s oftentimes a dodge
and oftentimes inaccurate, statistically speaking. Let’s just for the sake of
argument say for the hell of it that even if it’s true,
what does it mean? Let’s just say, for the sake of
argument, that there really aren’t enough to dramatically
change the demographics of Silicon Valley, at least
not right away. What, then, obligations do we
have to do something about it? Do we just passively
go, oh well. It’s not my fault. I didn’t create that
imbalance. It sort of sucks. I wish it wasn’t like that. But I don’t really have time
to think about that. Or do we think, well,
wait a minute now. We inherit this legacy for which
we’re not to blame, but we’ve inherited it and we sort
of have to be accountable to and responsible for what
we do with that. That’s what we do as
responsible people. I don’t think any of us in
here are deliberately responsible– I hope not– for poisoning the
water and the air and the soil all around this planet. You didn’t actually take your
own bucket of hazardous waste and go inject it in a deep well
into the water outside the back of your house. But it got in there. You didn’t go and belch
smoke with toxic chemicals into the air. But somebody did that, and now
you inherit the legacy. And as a responsible person,
not just as a citizen of a country but a citizen of the
planet, you have an obligation to deal with the stuff that
gets handed to you. So if we know that unfairness
and inequity has been handed down to us, then we have to be
conscious about how we’re going to undo that. You can’t do that passively. And ultimately, if you try,
you create incredible dysfunctions. It’s not a sustainable
model, ultimately. To be formally color blind. To not think about race. To not think about issues
of inequity. Or to not challenge our own
subjectivities, whether they’re personal or
institutional. Because here we are, in a state
that’s already mostly people of color, in a country
that’s going to be roughly 50-50 white and people of color
within a mere 30, maybe 35, years at the most. Maybe as few as 25. So somewhere between 25 and 35
years from now, we’re going to be a half and half country
of white folks and people of color. Unless you actually think, and
unless folks throughout American and in Silicon Valley
in particular, think that it is possible to maintain a tech
sector on the back of a dwindling percentage of the
population, which is incredibly unlikely and
it’s a pretty risky gamble, I would think. Unless we actually believe that
we’ll just continue to be able to cull 80, 85, and in
some cases even 90% of the best talent from a group of
people that’s shrinking in terms of its size, then we’d
better think very seriously about how we’re not going to
just passively sit back and say, oh well. We wish there were more of
them, but there aren’t. But we’re actually going
to go out and have to create that pool. We’re going to have
to actually go out and seed that pool. Whether that means collaborating
with school districts and individual schools
and mentoring folks at a very young age when they’re
actually thinking about what they want to be and what they
want to do when they grow up. I remember doing that when I
was in third or fourth or fifth grade. A lot of people don’t
think about it until quite a bit later. But if I never know that
you exist or that your opportunities exist or what it
would even mean to work here. What it would even mean to
work in Silicon Valley generally, at any institution. Then the odds are pretty
good, it’s just not going to be on my radar. If it’s not on my radar, I’m not
likely to apply for a job or seek a career in
the industry. And if I don’t apply, then
I can’t be actively discriminated against, in which
case I can’t sue and nothing ever changes. I can’t sue if you don’t
actually mistreat me. And you can’t even mistreat me
if I don’t even know you exist or know how to reach you. So we have to do that level of
very deliberate seed planting in order to create a
different culture. Not only for the sake of
fairness, which I think is important in its own right,
but also for the sake of institutional continuity. Just like I would tell and I
have told prep schools all around this country that have
been overwhelmingly white for a very long time, that they’re
going to have to think very seriously about how long
they want to exist. If you’re going to be a boarding
school and you’ve been around for 100 years living
off of the presence of affluent white folks in a
country where white folks are dwindling as a percentage of the
population, you don’t have a very good long term
chance of survival. Ultimately, you’re going to be
culling from a shrinking base. So you’ve got to think about
change not just for others, but also for yourself. And so in this particular case,
I’m glad that there are folks in the tech sector and
in Silicon Valley generally who are willing to ask
these questions. I only hope that you continue
to ask them without fear or recrimination or anxiety that
somehow people are going to look at you or others with whom
you work as bad people. I’m sure there are such folks. I’m sure we all know
some of them. But the reality is that most of
us are good folks trying to get it right. Unfortunately if we don’t
understand all the various ways that we get it wrong– because of the cognitive traps
into which we fall, because of our upbringing, because
of our conditioning– then we can’t solve them. The good news being the research
tells us very clearly that if we are willing
to confront that– if we are willing to own our own
biases and the extent to which we’ve been conditioned to
see certain people as more meritorious than
other people– the research says that if we’re
willing to do that, we actually can check the bias
before it becomes discriminatory behavior. So you actually can interrupt
the thought before it becomes the deed. And ultimately, that’s
what’s important. I don’t know a lot of people of
color who are too worried what white folks think
about them. It’s how white folks
treat them. I don’t know too many women who
are really that worried about what men think
about them. It’s how they get treated
as women. So ultimately, if we can
interrupt the thought before it becomes the deed, then harm,
the damage, of racism, of sexism, of all these isms,
can be if not undone, at least interrupted and diminished in
terms of its ability to harm others and, really, to
harm the society upon which we all depend. Thank you all so much
for being here. I appreciate it. I will take any questions that
you have in the time that we have left. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. [APPLAUSE] TIM WISE: Yes. AUDIENCE: Thanks. So at least in the realm of
sexism, I think there has been some basic acknowledgement
that we are not– that this is a major problem
in the tech industry and in Silicon Valley with kind of
the rise of the brogrammer culture in mainstream media. How do you take from
acknowledgment of the existence of this kind of
culture and get past the point where, right now, it seems
like it’s a preference. Like you have a brogrammer
company or one that is less so. And it seems right now like it’s
interpreted as a matter of preference. Like, oh, I prefer
to work here. Not like, this shit
is unacceptable. How do we stop it? How do we move forward
from there? TIM WISE: Right. Well, I think it’s
a good question. Because obviously, we can
acknowledge it and not problematize it. And I think that’s what
we tend to do. We acknowledge certain things,
but we don’t ultimately problematize them. Like we will acknowledge that
people tell racist jokes or sexist jokes, whether it’s in
the workplace or in the school or in the neighborhood. And then we will rationalize
that or not make a big deal out of that or act like
it’s not a problem. So clearly, one does not automatically lead to the other. The good news is that
if we create– and sometimes the critical mass
needed for this, and I don’t mean critical mass of
women in a male-dominated sector or of people of color in
a white-dominated sector so much as I mean a critical
mass of whomever willing to push back. And it might be in a certain
unit of a certain company or a certain industry, just
a handful of really committed people. It could be several dozen. It could be hundreds. It might take more than that. It’s never clear, depending
on where you are. But what the research find
is, and my own experience confirms, that when you push
back, and when a handful of people begin to push back
against the sort of unspoken norms of the culture, and begin
to just question them and to problem– and to ask
questions really more so than even make demonstrative
statements. Because it’s one thing to stand
up and say, this shit is unacceptable. And I’m all for that
a lot of times. Like, there are times when you
just have to say it that way. And then there are other times
when the approach, particularly when folks are
really dug in on their denial that there’s a problem going
on, is to ask a series of questions of them which leaves
very little possible conclusion other than this
shit is unacceptable. But it’s different if I tell you
that or if you think of it yourself, right? It’s like with my
own children. If I want my children to do
something, there are two approaches, right? I can either say, like, in the
morning if it’s time for school, I can say, get upstairs
and brush your teeth. We’re going to be late. Now, that works about
60% of the time. Maybe a little bit better than
flipping a coin, but not much. Or I can come up with a much
more inventive approach. I can ask my daughter. Usually it’s just one of them. The other one is a little bit
quicker on the draw with this. But I’ll ask what are
you supposed to be doing right now? Now, I know the answer is
brushing your damn teeth. That’s the point, right? I could have just
told you that. And you know it’s that. But if I tell you brush your
teeth, there’s that part of you that just, whether your a
kid or an adult and somebody tells you to do something that
might be dug in and not doing it and resisted. But if I ask you and you say,
oh– and she will– brushing my teeth, right? And I go, exactly. That’s awesome. Then all of a sudden, she
thinks she’s a genius. She thought up the problem
on her own. She now came up with the
solution on her own. So if I’m trying to get people
to really question the culture of an institution with regard to
race or gender or class or sexuality, sometimes asking
those kind of questions and getting a handful of people who
are prepared to step up as allies and ask those
questions. And when I say, as allies,
I mean specifically this requires that it’s not just
people of color who are raising this subject in a
white-dominated institution. It’s not just women who are
raising this issue in a male-dominated institution. It means that some of us who
are male and some of us who are white and especially if
we’re both, and some of us who are straight and some of us are
working class background or whatever it is where these
issues come into play. We’ve also got to be prepared to
stand up and to challenge. And what’s really interesting
in the research is that when that happens, you end up
discovering a lot of times– not all the time, but a lot of
times– that there are lots of other people in the
institutional space who also were thinking, this shit
is unacceptable. But they didn’t want
to go first. Part of this is not that we’re
ignorant or we don’t understand the problem. Sometimes that’s it. But sometimes it’s just, I
sort of know the problem. I don’t want to put
my neck out first. I don’t want to go first. Nobody wants to go first,
because there’s that chance that you’re going to get your
hand slapped or your neck chopped off or whatever. So you sort of hold
back and wait. And as soon as someone else does
it, as soon as someone else raises the issue, that’s
when you’ll start to see people go, yeah. I was thinking about that. Now they don’t feel
they’re alone. And so I think in a sense,
that’s an important piece. And it’s also important to put
yourself in the middle of the problem when you’re
discussing it. To say, it’s not just
that the culture generically is this way. It’s that I’m a part of it. And I’ve imbibed it. And I’ve taken part in it. And I’ve contributed to it. And I realize that
that’s a problem. Because just that level of
honesty and transparency makes it easier for someone else to
be honest and transparent. Otherwise, what it sounds like
is, this shit is unacceptable. I’m good, but this shit is
unacceptable, right? As opposed to saying, no,
actually, this shit is unacceptable, but I also
am part of the stuff that’s not OK. And the minute you allow
yourself to be part of the problem, then other people
are willing to own their piece of it too. Other questions? AUDIENCE: So once you all have
this shit is unacceptable moment and then we support
people so you start to have women in the brogrammer culture
or more African Americans going to college, et
cetera, how do we support them once they’re there? TIM WISE: Well, I think the
key to that is you have to actively continue to work with
and collaborate with people. And with as opposed to for. I was a community organizer for
about a year and a half in the mid ’90s, and one of the
things that I learned just doing that work was if I was
going to work with communities that were marginalized both
racially economically and really just culturally oppressed
and dominated and targeted and often times
devastated communities. The only way I was really going
to be of any use as a white man who had a college
degree– and so in every way, I had all the privileges and
advantages that most of the people in that space didn’t,
because not only were they folks of color, not only were
they poor and usually not with college educations, they were
also disproportionately women in public housing, et cetera. The only way that I could really
be of any use to them in the long run was to start by
listening to what they said they needed. Not asking them in a voyeuristic
way, like, how can I help you? Because that gets old. Like people who are constantly
being crapped on really don’t need you to say, how
can I help you? Because you can help them by
not crapping on them, first and foremost. And so we just have to be
prepared to listen. So I would go into the community
and I would listen very carefully to what
was being said. Not necessarily to me in
response to a direct question, but just what were they
talking about? What were the things
on their mind? What were the things that
they needed to see change in that community? So that when I then got involved
in a campaign to do x, y, or z, I knew I was
following their lead. And the same is true in a
corporate setting or in a school setting. If you listen carefully to
what folks of color are saying, or what women as women
are saying, and sometimes that requires just keeping
your ears open. Other times it might
really require– and I think in the best
of cases, it does– getting to know individuals
and creating relationship with them. Because if I do get to know you
on a one-on-one level and I can hear your story and you
can hear mine and I can share it with you, then I might be
able to figure out some way in which I can assist you in
navigating a culture which maybe was not set up for you,
but which I see as important for you to succeed in. And also, there’s some
reciprocity involved. Because even if, as a dominant
group member, I was in there working with these
communities– not for them, but with them– I was still getting something
out of it. It wasn’t all a one-way
street. It wasn’t just that I was going
in and giving them the technical assistance that they
needed to fight for a particular piece
of legislation. I wasn’t just giving
them information. I was also taking
something away. What I was taking away was the
insight and the wisdom that otherwise usually was totally
untapped and un-listened to. And then I could take that and
take that out and talk to other people about it in a way
that the people in the community sometimes couldn’t,
because they didn’t have the microphone. So if I’m going to work with and
mentor folks who are being marginalized on the basis of
some identity that, let’s say, I don’t share, I’m able to
listen very carefully and not only then maybe direct my
actions in a way that will really help them, but more
importantly, I’m able to then go and talk to other people,
maybe of my own identity. Maybe I can go talk to other men
and challenge men around sexism after listening to women
talk about what it is that they need to see happen
in that regard. Or as a white person, I can
challenge other white folks perhaps in a way that people of
color also try to challenge white folks, but oftentimes
aren’t heard. So I can take the wisdom and
then amplify that wisdom, giving credit to the wisdom
where credit is due, not assuming that it’s mine. But saying, hey, this is
the stuff that I’m hearing from folks. And I tend to start with the
assumption that they know their needs. And so I think we all should
start with that assumption. So there are ways of amplifying,
ways of listening, ways of subordinating sort of
your own assumptions about what people need to what
they actually are saying that they need. A lot of times we might assume
that people need a particular resource. And that may be the one that
this person needs. But it might not be the
one this person needs. This person might
need this very formal mentoring structure. This other person might just
need one individual to whom they can relate on a very
personal, not even professional, level, in order to
feel comfortable when they come to work. So you have to learn to listen
and create connection with the people whom you’re trying to
move into the space where maybe they’re not normative
for the space. AUDIENCE: Hi. Do you have any concrete things
that somebody can do on any given day to challenge
somebody who just refuses to see anything or hear anything? TIM WISE: Well, I mean there’s
no silver bullet for that. And obviously, the people who
are truly dug in and refuse to see things are usually
people– they are movable. Most people are not completely
immovable. But the odds that you’ll be
able, by virtue of some really well-placed argument or fact
or even story, to dislodge them when they’re that dug in. You might be able to do it. But the amount of time you’re
going to have to spend to make that happen may very well not
be worth the energy that it takes even if it works. Those are the kind of people
that normally sort of have to have their little come to Jesus
moments, where something happens and the clouds part and
they’re like, holy shit. I need to change everything
I think about the world. You’re not likely to
give them that. You might be able to, if you’re
really persuasive. But the odds are, they’re going
to have to come to that on their own. So what does that mean? Do we go throw up our hands? No. What it means is that
fundamentally, you start not with the hardest cases
like that. You’re trying to
build a certain amount of energy, right? You’re trying to build a
certain inertia towards justice and toward equity. So if you’re starting with the
people who are not those folks that you’re describing. But folks who say all the right
stuff and for the most part, you can assess that they
mean it, at least in theory. That they actually want
to do right by folks. That they really do want equity
and justice, and they know that these things
might be problems. But they may not actually
be involved in trying to change anything. They know it here. They’re not necessarily
working on it in an effective way. Then you start to build a
certain sense of capacity. Again, it’s not just that people
don’t want to go first. It’s that until they see
movement, they may not do anything at all. What I learned in public housing
projects when I worked there as an organizer was the
thing that the people they are needed more than anything, more
than me, they just needed to know that they could win
a couple of things. And if they knew they could
win a couple– and I mean, really minor stuff. Not like major victories. Just minor things, to give
them a sense of their own power and their own capacity. And then they start to do
the work on their own. And they start to change the
dynamics in the community, even though there are people
in much more powerful positions that don’t want
anything to change. I remember going in, very
first week that I was an organizer, and talking to
somebody about what are you all fighting for? What are you working on? Because I was going to hit the
ground, be really excited and interested in this. And I figured he was going to
answer, well, we’re fighting to smash white supremacy,
because that’s why I was there, by god. And we’re going to smash
economic injustice. Well, I mean all that
stuff is true. That’s their long-term goal. But instead of telling me that,
he looked at me and said, we’re trying to get
a stoplight right there. And I remember going, what? A stoplight? At a corner? Like, what’s that? I mean, I know what it is,
but why is that such an important thing. And he said, well,
a couple reasons. One is like four kids have
been hit on their bikes because there’s no stoplight. So we need a stop light so kids
will not get hit on their bikes because cars will stop. So that’s the most
obvious answer. He said secondly, though, it’s
more important, the reason we’re fighting for
the stop light is because we can get it. We can get it. We’ll win. If we fight hard enough on this,
we’ll get– it won’t even be that hard. We’ll get the stop light. And yeah, it doesn’t
change anything about the larger structure. But it gives the community a
sense that there’s something possible in their actions. That they can, in fact, fight
and occasionally get the outcomes that they want. That’s what any group that’s
subordinated– whether it’s economically,
racially, religiously, culturally, terms of gender,
sex, sexuality– needs is to know that it’s
not a wasted struggle. And the more that they know
that, the more they’re invested in the sense that they
actually have efficacy and they have agency that
can be effective. The more that they’re going to
want to work with others. They’re going to be
less exhausted. Less burned out. They’re going to be physically
healthier. Because they know that even
though it’s not going to happen quickly, it can happen. And therefore, you end up doing
an end run around some of these really hard cases. Ultimately, some of
them might change. But the thing that will
change the most is not anything that you say. Not any story that you tell or
statistic that you offer or fact that you give them. But simply the example of people
on the move trying to change the institution. Because most people who are
really dug in like that also tend to be very– they just tend to be more
compliant people. That’s why they don’t want to
think outside their existing world view. Because they tend to just exceed
to what they already assume it’s normative. Well, if you start to create
change, right? With or without them. Now, that becomes normative. And now that person that’s very
compliant gets on board. In fact, they’ll get on board
and say they were down with it all the time. Like, oh my god. It’s like people will tell you
they marched with Dr. King. Oh yeah, shit, I was
at every march. I was right there next to him. This person was like seven when
King was killed, but they have added 20 years to their
age just to make you think that they were at some rally. That person or their parents
might have been horribly opposed to the civil
rights movement. But now, 30, 40, 50 years later,
they’re like, oh yeah, I was there. I was at Woodstock. No. No, you weren’t. No. You weren’t there. And so ultimately, you just
create this energy, this movement, that other people
end up feeling– not all of them, but enough of
them– feel compelled to glom onto, even if it’s for
the wrong reasons. Their reasons for wanting to
jump on that bus may not be the same as other people’s,
but if they get on the bus ultimately and take that trip
to whatever location justice is to be found, then
they’ll get there. They may get there with a very
different purpose and a very different level of intent, but
at the end of the day, if they’re there, then you’ve
sort of got them. And so I wouldn’t be my head
against the wall on the hardest cases first. I’d save that until– unless you just feel really
persuasive and energetic and you’ve got nothing else to
do with the five hours. But ultimately, I think that,
for the most part, the thing that gets folks like that is a
sense of inevitability, right? That’s certainly what got
civil rights laws. It wasn’t that Lyndon Johnson
woke up and said, oh my god. I’ve been a stone asshole all
of my life and didn’t even vote for anti-lynching
legislation. Oh my god, I’m a terrible
person. It’s like Nixon didn’t wake up
and say, we’ve been bombing and killing millions of
southeast Asians. What the hell is
wrong with me? I should stop this. That’s not what happened. Ultimately, these individuals
felt that they had no other choice. You could’ve gotten somebody
more dug in on race, in a lot of ways, than someone like
Johnson had been early in his career. You couldn’t get anybody more
dug in on cold war mentality stuff than Nixon. And yet when they felt that they
had no choice, they ended up making decisions they might
not even have wanted to make, but they had to make them. And that’s the power of
movement activity. That’s the power of the
inevitable inertia that you can create your own energy,
with or without those individuals. Thank you all so much. I appreciate you being here. [APPLAUSE]




Comments
  1. Tim Wise is not white. He's a white hating Jew. Do your fucking homework.
    He's promoting hatred. Cultural Marxist Jews hate white people and always have.

  2. It is a hard fact if you riot in this world blacks and brown local police department but if whites get involve national guard. Must keep the illusion going of one sector having the power ……

  3. You're not white Timmy, you're a goddamn filthy semitic piece of trash who's ancestors crawled out from under a rock in that desert shithole known as Israel. Eat shit and die, jewboy.

  4. what has Tim Wise truly done that has helped advanced anything besides his own book sales and speaking fees? i'm really curious to know why people would praise this guy for just running a political con game on other whites to fatten his pockets riding on the backs of racial groups he doesn't belong to?

  5. If the U.S. is such a racist nation, why are millions of people from all over the world willing to risk all to come here? It's because this country offers them a chance at advancing themselves like no other country could. Mr. Wise, you are just another huckster con man race pimp making a living off of the uninformed.

  6. I really applaud Mr. Wise's brave stance on the issue of White Privilege. Mr. Wise is fighting White Privilege by taking the fight directly to neighbors in a nearly exclusively white neighborhood (with 3% Asian-mainly Indian doctors who work at Vanderbilt) in Nashville. I'm sure Mr. Wise would prefer to live in an area of Nashville with more vibrant youth, but he is sacrificing his own life and the lives of his children by selflessly living in a neighborhood with very few vibrant youth. Tim wants more vibrant youth to live in white neighborhoods as well as bringing in more people of color from third world nations into the US. 

    Hopefully, being that he is ever mindful of his own white privilege he will want to change the Jewish only immigration laws Israel has. I'm sure Tim wants to make sure Israel has more vibrant youth.

  7. Tim is a neocon jew who is not white but only looks white. Kinda like how in Genesis it says Ashkenazi are not jews and they are the Synagogue of Satan.

  8. The reason why there are so many Jews in Hollywood,Ivy League high positions in media is because of their Jewish privilege. Tim Wise has Jewish ancestry and his propaganda targeting Gentiles is just cover up for the real problem and that is the Jewish power

  9. Why are there so many Jews that push for discussions about anti-racism and white privilege? They have the highest IQ's out of any race. They are also the wealthiest race. Yet any discussion about Jewish privilege is labeled as "anti-semitic"

    People should talk about white privilege if they want to but they should also openly talk about the privilege many Jews have.

  10. Amazing how a Jewish person writes a book about his white privilege. What a load Jewish people do not identify as white ..just Jewish.This academic weasel is just another Jewish race baiter…good job I am sure your people are proud. Super Jewish Supremist!

  11. Funny to me how white people seem to think "Jews" are a different race from them. Lol you are the SAME PEOPLE with different ideologies.

  12. JEW!   JEW!   JEW!.      Hey,  Jewish Tim Wise,  why not tell that Black People about the "Free Boat Trips"  your Jewish Ancestors took them on?  heheheh

  13. I sense a lot of white guilt in this man. I think you have been watching too much CNN Mr. Tim Wise lol 😂

  14. Silicon Valley…. how many inner-city kids are working hard to get jobs in Silicon Valley?
    …because society is at fault for kids preferring to hang out with their friends and forgo academic work that results in better jobs.

  15. Awesome speech. I wish we could leave out the gender politics which are highly debatable out of the conversation to push forward with those that are CLEAR problems.

  16. Man I look at some of these comments with a bowl of popcorn. Reading these comments are like watching a Tyler Perry movie where the characters find out the truth and it hurts them so much. Lol! 🍿🍿🍿🍿Thanks Tim!

  17. Time whise is not white, he is Jewish. Like all Jews, the lie about being whites to subvert and control, but make no mistake, he does NOT identify as a white European in his private life.

  18. I am here to listen to other ideas, learn and have an open mind and see many different points of view and would be more open to this guy if it didn't sound so angry. BLAME – SHAME – IGNORANCE you are bad because you were born white. This guy sounds angry, is not trying to talk to and convince his audience. and talks too fast.

  19. Any Jew pushing anti-whiteness and hatred toward whites like this is NOT white. They are doing it on purpose to make non-whites think whites are persecuting them. If they are successful and they get rid of all the whites, they'll do the same thing to non-whites. All they care about is using divide and conquer tactics to control EVERYONE.

    Folks, anyone claiming to be white like this, the first thing you do is go to Wikipedia, look them up and search for the word Jew on their page. If they have Jewish ancestry THAT is why they are doing this. They don't even consider THEMSELVES white. He's straight lying through his teeth. Look up their little song they teach their kids, "I'm not white. I'm Jewish" . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XYMRAoqVmY

  20. I never got into college because I'm black where as all my white friends did. I had the same 2.5 gpa as a couple of them did yet they all denied me. It's not fair and right. Now I work at a factory because I don't make enough money I stole some shit which I regret very bad but now have a felony that will not be waived. If a white person did this it would have been dropped. Whenever I get pulled over for something i always get ticketed granted I am guilty but I feel liek whites would get away with it.

    I'm sorry but whites have such an advantage that it should be federal law to give up jobs and college admission to blacks even if they aren't as good. We still have to suffer from the recourse of slavery. Every single white person has privldege and gets to where they are because of it, sorry i said it. You would have never gotten a doctor's degree if it weren't for the color of ur skin.

  21. How come the issue is usually white vs. black until a Jew with white skin agrees with the black community, than we need to break down the white race. Fuck it I'm not black I'm a Muslim African who happened to be born in the us with dark skin and all the oppressors I come across can immediately figure that out with one glance at me good thing I'm not black that would be rough 😑

  22. White Like Me. LOL But he's not. He lied to you in the title of the book. You didn't even have to open his book and he has already lied to you. Pathetic.

  23. "Dear fellow white people, we must accept our genocide. Give us reparations. Do as we tell you to, not as your rulers do."

  24. The smartest reasoning I have seen on the subjects of inequality. A good point made, being objective about acknowledging racism and sexism, etc. Try to think past being hurt by being called as such. However, I still disagree that ignorance is any kind of a privilege in the long run.

  25. Apparently white privilege is so invisible, stealthy, and hidden that Tim Wise can't even offer any evidence of its existence, we're just suppose to accept it based on faith.

    This sounds a lot like the bogey man! Always hiding under the bed, but you can never see him.

  26. Wow, I learned so much then read the comments posted. I was surprised to see the comments. Some of these comments express exactly what he said re indoctrinated erroneous thinking. We are not qualified to judge or try to assign, we do not have Tim Wise DNA, neither is he or anyone else qualified to assess us or our DNA. So, do unto others…. you know the verse. STOP SPREADING THE HATE.

  27. DAAAMMM!! Such amazing work, I’m super impressed by what you had to say. Probs to Google for having you speak at their employees.

  28. There's truth in many perspectives. Sometimes two opposing views are simultaneously right, but for different reasons. What is considered "right" for one group, is seldom right (or beneficial) for a different group.

    Sure, let's all just ignore the continuum of biological anthropology. These silly old words such as "white" and "black", they're just colors, right? It's just skin color, right? It's not like evolutionary theory asserts physiological adaptations shaped over millennia by geography and various other factors? No, no, no, that'd be an observant inquiry, which of course, is racist. Even though Asians have more brain mass, and heightened temporal lobe function. Even though Africans are athletically superior. Even though race is objectively observable, whether it's under a DNA-sample microscope, or an MRI brain scan image.

    White privilege=White pro-activeness.

    Ever notice how Asians and whites are the historically proven forerunners of prosperous technological societies? Ethnic groups from colder regions (above the equator) had to, by necessity, discover combustion engines, electrical theory, thermal-dynamics, advanced medical techniques, space travel, etc. It doesn't mean we're better; it means we're different. Historically. Biologically. Spiritually.

  29. God bless you Google for allowing this necessary talk to take place at Google and for sharing it with the community at large.

  30. i am osali oope i love all even there they prejust drol woh hcum yeht truh em ni iiksid ma gnitgif ti etistraight

  31. It's not racism, it's actually IQism. Tim Wise knows this, George Soros is funding him through his Open Society Foundation. Both Wise and Soros are high IQ Jews who have never criticised Israel for banning non-Jewish immigration. What is the true agenda here?

  32. He is right, to a point. There is more to hiring a person than on-paper merits. There is also the in-person interview. Sometimes a person with less credential based merits can prove themselves a better pick for their interpersonal dynamic — a facet that cannot be expressed on paper. That is where the in-person interview comes into play. However, implying that jobs should go to people based on characteristics that have nothing to do with on-job performance is flawed and, perhaps, even degrading.

  33. How does saying we live in a meritocracy lead to "very racist conclusions?" Isn't it possible that there are other factors besides race that any perceived disconnect or misrepresentation could be explained by? Men's propensity to work longer hours and not get pregnant? Black people's affinity toward lower-income neighborhoods and the natural socioeconomic implications of that? I think there are plenty of reasons there is a misrepresentation, but I certainly don't think the amount of melanin in my skin determines that.

  34. White privilege is class guilt invented by 60's French Marxists. I appreciate the sentiment, I think Tim really believes he's making a difference but even the guy who invented the 'racial bias' test later admitted it doesn't work.

  35. Everyone is afraid to talk about the truth. White privilege is almost equal to Arab privilege in Saudi Arabia, but Asian privilege in China outstrips both of these.

  36. White privilege seems to be an important element of Political Multiculturalism. The flip side of White privilege is White Responsibility. But when do we ever hear that mentions and appreciated in the liberal race-baiting media? And at its root the whole ball of wax is is a spiritual phenomenon. It is a mob mentality driven by a confusing Babel of evil spirits but all raging towards one objective.

    There is a strange movement, an ideology, a spirit that has is taking over the universities and our culture in the West. This ideology, or actually anti-ideology, is called multi-culturalism. It is a globalist impetus of full out rebellion against all the mores of Western Christendom. It is driven by a discontiguous gang of evil spirits. These angelic puppet masters pull the strings of profane men to make them dance. These are unseen entities operating from another dimension just outside our view.

    Dr. Peterson said something truly profound in this presentation. He said this. People don’t have ideas. Ideas have people. Ideas, and the spirits that drive them, (and we must assume these are either the Holy Spirit or evil spirits), have people. Spirits of darkness can own men and women, either from time to time as oppressions or own them as their possessions all through their lives and on into eternity.

    Spirits, or entities from another dimension can be seen to inspire, redeem, and truly liberate people. Or they can be seen to come into human lives and do quite the opposite. Malevolent spirits are out there. They are seeking to possess people in bondage and drive their duped charges to do their bidding. So what we are now seeing in political multiculturalism is an example of the latter. We are seeing a disjointed Babel of spirits at work in human lives. These spirits characterized by hostility and confusion. Interestingly they all seem to be raging at much the same target, namely, the West and the God of the Western people, the Judeo-Christian God.

    That is very interesting, isn’t it. This is clearly seen in the mob mentality of multiculturalism now screaming at any and all authority figures on our college campuses. We even see them howling at the moon in their street demonstrations. This house wrecking phenomenon is increasingly evident in places like California. California has been said to be the bell weather state. So we had best pay attention.

    Multiculturalism has come about by a passing of the baton from one group of disaffected souls to another. Marxism and it’s class hatred of the “bourgeois” Western people and their Judeo-Christian God has lost its punch. The war against God so evident in Marxism has now passed their torch on to be re-formulated as political multiculturalism. As we can see, it is diffuse and disjointed. But nevertheless, it is at its root the same hostile mobbing spirit. We are seeing yet again another poorly disguised frontal attack on Western Christendom. Or at least an attack on the remnant that still remains.

    Political multi-culturalism has emerged out of the long delayed discrediting of Communism and Marxism. This push-back against Marxism finally came. It was delayed but it finally came by the revelation of emerging truths. These were the facts about Marxism in the 20th Century and its history of bloody tyranny. In spite of the news blackout by the liberal establishment the horrors of Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s Red Guards in China, and the goons that killed a third of the population in the killing fields of Cambodia under the Marxist Pol Pot did finally come out. They are a matter of record. And even if they are not featured in our history books these truths did have to come out eventually. And they are coming out now, thanks to men like Dr. Peterson.

    So the raging evil spirits and their gathering mobs of profane people, underwent a metamorphism back in the 1960’s. They are now the multicultural political movement. We see them infiltrating Western hierarchies in government, in business, and academia. They sneak in under a thick smoke-screen of disinformation and non-information. And so what we are seeing now is a very aggressive, uncivil mob spirit, the very malignant expression of “political multiculturalism”.

    Yes, multiculturalism is a determined political phenomenon. This spirit seeks to engage people amenable to ideas of victimization. These spirits of malcontent hover around those who seek to find meaning in their lives and want desperately fill the existential void that comes from godlessness.

    So at a deeper level post-modern political multiculturalism is actually a spiritual phenomenon. And as we see, the raging movement is bound and determined to wreck Western Christendom. And as we see, post modernism and multiculturalism is now being pushed politically and presumptuously all throughout the nations of the West. Mobs of people without any cohesive reasoning or doctrine are gathering together. They are attempting to smash the mores of Western culture. Their stated intent is to force in their political multiculturalism by any and all means, including political means. These people fully intend to do this without God, the only One who can make this true unity among people happen.

    As we see, there is a real and observable unity of people of different cultures that is on the world stage today. The Christian faith does indeed bring in a real and true multi-cultural unity. In. Christendom we see people of all nation, races, and different backgrounds flow together harmoniously both under an inward resolve to uphold law and righteousness and loves lived out in the Christian graces.

    The powers of darkness are in an absolute tizzy about all this. They are absolutely furious. And so now, as we see, these spirits of confusion want to shut down all civil discourse in the universities and ban all Christian conversation in public places.

    The nations of the West have forgotten their God. They are now coming under and being driven by the spirit of confusion the spirit of Babel. They are raging in anger.

    This is not new. It is a phenomenon prophesied from of old. 3,000 years ago King David described the raging of nations in the song he wrote. It is there in Psalm 2. We are seeing this anger take expression in the dictates the radicals want to foist upon professors and students in academia. We are also seeing the same godless dictates coming into the schools, into our legislature, and being normalized by the Hegelian dialectic in the media, and in our popular culture.

    Political multiculturalism, as Dr. Peterson points out in this presentation, is not amenable to reasoned discussion. It is a disjointed mob mentality. And as we can readily see, post-modernism and political multiculturalism is having a measure of success in pushing forward its hidden but malevolent agenda of chaos.

    Have we seen thus before? Have we seen mobs rise up red faced and lunging forward in the red horse politics of anger. Have we seen polite conversations about socialism in the coffee houses of France rise up, take on political power, and then smash the fabric of nations with a tyrannical militant socialism the latte drinking socialists never expected? Yes we have.

    We saw mob rule at the trial of Jesus. Pilate washed his hands of the affair. Then he gave the judgment over to the mob. The mob was unanimous. “Away with Him! Crucify Him!”

    It was just few years later, in 70 A.D., that the mobs rose up again. This time their raging erupted out of control as the city of Jerusalem was being destroyed by the Roman legions. Titus and his other generals had all agreed that they were going to preserve and spare the Temple. But a raging mob of soldiers rushed in with firebrands against the orders of their officers. General Titus himself actually took up sword and fought against his own men, trying to hold the mob back. But it was to no avail. The raging horde rushed in, overwhelming all restraint. The Temple was soon in flames.

    This very event had been prophesied 600 years before by the prophet Daniel. In Daniel chapter 9 he states,

    Daniel 9
    26 “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;.”

    Similar sorts of tyranny and mob uprisings have been seen throughout history. We saw it in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in the 1500’s. This was a mob uprising that saw the bloody massacre of up to 100,000 French Protestant Huguenots, and all in just a matter of days. The rivers of France were so choked with corpses that the French would not eat fish for a year afterwards. We saw mob rule with the storming of the Bastille and in the subsequent kangaroo courts of the French Revolution. So many nobles, ship captains, and upright citizens of France were condemned and sent to the guillotine. Even Robespierre, an orator of the virtues and renowned father of the French Revolution was caught in the ire of the rabble. He too went to his death in that terrible mob uprising, the Reign of Terror.

    So going back to the prophecy by Daniel. Just who are

    “the people of the prince who is to come”?

    They are the profane post-modern political multiculturalists we are seeing rise up today.

    And who is “the prince who is to come”?

    He is the Antichrist.

  37. Well, first of all we have to determine if women are as good as men at computer programming. Because if they are not then it is not sexist to say men are better at computer programming. Reality is not sexist!

  38. He is jewish. Yet wrote a book about being white. Imagine I wrote a book called "Jewish Privilege"…

  39. White privilege? What is the wellspring of white privilege?
    Let’s talk about it, shall we?

    Time for rationalists to dig deeper than race.
    White privilege = the privilege of being entrained under the Judeo-Christian discipline. White privilege is not exclusive to whites. It is open to all races and all races in Christ enjoy the graces that originally came out of Western Christendom butbis now spreading worldwide.

    White privilege = the blessing of living in a culture engendered by a significant minority who belong to Jesus Christ.

    But as we know from Scripture, “Judgement begins in the house of God”. So yes, whites are in for some trouble. Christian whites will get it worse even as they bring in the end-time final witness. They are set for persecution, even as Joseph was persecuted by his brothers, in a Great Tribulation that tries men’s souls. The crucible of Holy history is set to refine the saints even as silver and gold.

    And the end of the story? A multiracial spiritual household under Messiah.
    See what John saw in Revelation chapter 7.

  40. Well, my dad was a longshoreman and as we all know, longshoreman make MILLIONS of dollars. People throw rose pedals at my feet as I walk down the street, just because i'm white. It's awesome.

  41. 1. Heart monitors show heart rate not blood pressure.
    2. Downy is fabric softener not toilet paper.
    Good speech otherwise!

  42. What twisted times we live in. integrity has been replaced by selfishness, truth has been replaced by opportunism. Dr. King's dream is all but gone. Character isn't important anymore. Sad that all he worked for has been undone by the people he fought and died to help.

  43. Warning to anyone watching for a class or just to watch out of curiosity:

    – There is anti-Semitic talk in the comments
    – There is senseless lashing out at Wise for his ideas in the comments with seldom any that have respectful criticism
    – There's a lot of left and right leaning people that are arguing in the comments
    -The comments will give you a headache

    Have a good day!

  44. Tim Wise is one of the many examples of a Jewish person pretending to be White, and speaking on behalf of White people, to the detriment of Whites. That's not racist, apparently. But pointing out the reality that he's Jewish is considered racist. This proves the word racist is just a wizard spell, like abracadabra. Don't give it any power.

  45. Actually he does and can make good money from fighting white supremacy simply by writing and selling book's on the subject.

  46. Being a jew is not a race he is a white man that happens to be Jewish why white supremacists hate white folk that are Jews has never made sense to me.

  47. Tim White Knight. Time i live in the South. I al African American. Where are all these white supremacist boogeymen you try to scare people of color with. Tim Wise is a racist white supremacist in my opinion. I know many POC who know this type of racism all to wel. Masta Whitey like Tim tells us to fear Massa and we fear Massa. STFU Time you fucking cuck

  48. Race pimp, and carpet bagger Tim Wise doing what he does best. Preaching anti White bigotry to an echo chamber. I'd like to see Tim Wise talk on television the way he talks on his Twitter. He's an an anti white bigot, a carpet bagger (he's made his money off the backs of those he claims to fight for), a narcissist, and bully. A sanctimonious anti white bigot, demagogue

  49. Jews are the most vile and racist people on the planet. Everything they accuse others of doing is a projection of how they treat others. Listening to a lot of Jewish people like Tim Wise who attack white people while protecting Jewish people has brought me to realize that.

    Change my mind.

  50. WHITE PEOPLE CAN'T BE RACIST, HERE'S WHY:

    EUROPEAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THE MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE OF ALL TIME, JUST LOOK AT THESE EXAMPLES OF WHITE PEOPLE/EUROPEANS BEING ENSLAVED AND OPPRESSED:

    1.THE ARAB SLAVE TRADE

    2.THE BARBARY SLAVE TRADE

    3.THE CRIMEAN SLAVE TRADE

    4.THE IRISH SLAVE TRADE

    5.THE VIKING SLAVE TRADE

    6.THE GREEK AND ROMAN SLAVE TRADES

    7.COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST REGIMES ENSLAVING WHITES

    8.THE CHRISTIAN PERSECUTIONS

    9.WARS FOUGHT TO FREE NON WHITES

    10.CENTURIES OF INDENTURED SERVITUDE

    11.TERRORIST ATTACKS

    12.ATTACKS BY HUNS, MIDDLE EASTERNERS AND NORTH AFRICANS

    13. SERFDOM AND FEUDALISM

    14. NEW ZEALAND WHITE SLAVE TRADE

    15. WHITE SLAVES OF THE GOLDEN HORDE

    BILLIONS OF EUROPEANS ENSLAVED AND OPPRESSED GOING BACK OVER 3,000 YEARS AND HALF OF THESE WERE WHITE WOMEN! WHITE PEOPLE ARE SO TOUGH THAT THEY NEVER COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'VE NEVER BEEN OPPRESSED!

  51. Yep. He's one of the tribe. What a surprise. Every single time. They always try to stir up trouble between blacks and whites and other groups. I remember when this hateful man came to my college to speak before I knew much about his tactics and ideology or about the left in general. I knew he was full of shit but couldn't articulate it.

  52. Tim Wise : You can't find out if racism still exists by asking white people

    White people in comment section : This Tim Wise sure is a fool because racism doesn't exist

  53. Whites also do not like to be othered. Whiteness is supposed to be so ubiquitous as to be invisible and unspoken about. They have existed as the default for so long .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *