Whiteness as Property and Environmental Health

One of the concepts that Harris opens up her piece with is "passing." She then drops the strand of thought, to return to it later, when her conversation turns to affirmative action. She says that, "like 'passing,' affirmative action undermines the property interest in whiteness," (1779), but that "what passing attempts to circumvent, affirmative action moves to challenge" (1779). This is a very intriguing argument. Affirmative action is about challenging the white status quo, but in an in-your-face way, rather than working "within" the institution of whiteness, as she defines passing. Although what she talks about is a move away from the ideals of "passing" towards something structurally different, I have to wonder: what is/would modern-day "passing" mean? What would it look like? Does "passing" exist anymore in our society? It seems that more and more we are moving towards a push to reevaluate our essentialist ideas about race or origin-based identity, so that even the word "passing" might have become a slur. In the context of our past class discussion, we talked about ways that Obama might have transcended certain identity boundaries. Does this transcendence constitute a form of "passing," or is that a term that is no longer useful to our understandings of society? (The concept of colorblindness, on the other hand, that we talked extensively about, shows up blaringly in her article. She believes, as we generally concluded as a class, that the claim of "colorblindness" actually upholds and produces racism.)

A point that I thought was crucial was Harris' definition of white identity as not necessarily guaranteeing that one will win in life, but definitely guaranteeing that one will not lose (1758). A problem that has been forming in my mind the past couple of weeks regards this idea of structural racism that both Harris and Pulido define. Pulido, in her article "Rethinking Environmental Racism," reprimands studies on environmental racism that do not question racism as a structural institution. I am becoming increasingly concerned that this growing understanding of structural racism potentially removes the responsibility from the individual in dealing with racism. If racism can be removed from the individual and attributed to the structure, it becomes much easier for the individual (especially the white individual) to claim exemption from participation in both perpetrating and, conversely, solving the problem of racism. Of course acknowledging structural racism, as well as environmental racism and white privilege and whiteness as property is essential, but what is next? Where does a white person go after acknowledging and understanding the ways that she is implicated in all of these structures? Pulido says, "because most white people do not see themselves as having malicious intentions, and because racism is associated with malicious intent, whites can exonerate themselves of all racist tendencies, all teh white ignoring their investment in white privilege" (15). But once white privilege is acknowledged, then what? If a middle-class white person were to reject her privilege by moving out of the suburbs and into the "inner city," she would most likely be gentrifying. I suppose my question is this: Although this is highly improbable, if all white people in the country were to actively recognize and grapple with their white privilege, what would that struggle look like in terms of dismantling racist structures?

Concrete Whiteness and Impossible Subjects

As I read this week's readings (Mae Ngai's Impossible Subjects, Claire Jean Kim's "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans," and Nicholas De Genova's "Latino and Asian Formations at the Frontiers of U.S. Nationalism"), my mind kept running back to a concept of Paolo Freire's. Freire, a Brazilian educational/social-justice theorist, presents the concept of the "suboppressor" in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. This framework offered me great insight into the works covered in our course this week. Kim's definition of triangulation as "relative valorization" is an example of White people attempting to create a system of suboppressorship. A suboppressor class arises when a subjugated group adheres to the social roles and behaviors of the dominant oppressor class and perpetuates a cycle of oppression against another subjugated group. Kim talks about a dominant group (which she names as White) placing/naming one subordinate group as culturally and/or racially better than another in order to dominate both. She continues to describe the way that Black people were villainzed and Asian people sanctified in the process of maintenance of white dominance in America. Along with her analysis of the model minority myth, it becomes clear that White America (I am referring to the dominant whiteness here, not to all White folks) draws and rests its power on the insolidarity of other racial and ethnic groups.

All of this week's readings brought up and questioned both the insider/foreigner dynamic and the Black/White racial binary system in America. Ngai talks about impossible subjects who, despite being viewed as foreigners, exist within the American landscape. The idea of existence becomes crucial in linking this week's readings. De Genova talks about the genocide of Native Americans as a decimation but not an extermination; he says, "as if mass slaughter ever accomplished the end of absolute extermination and extinction" (2). Once an identity group is labeled as foreign, as decisively external to the American identity, the hegemonic nature of American whiteness as "American"-ness, as De Genova names it, is reaffirmed. In the process of trying to gain access to and inclusion within the American identity, groups have engaged in a process of adhesion to the oppressors'/White people's ideals, exhibiting sub-oppressive mentalities. The multiple court cases where non-White people argued for racial classification as White reflect this dynamic. These articles open the door to many questions. What constitutes assimilation? Has America ever been a melting pot, or is it a white dish surrounded by colorful garnishes on the margins? How does one have to represent herself in order to be associated with her racial group (this question is drawn from the Kim article--I'm curious as to why she says White people disassociate Asian people from carrying identity politics)?

Lastly, I was intrigued by the minimal attention paid to multiracial people in these authors' reflections on dismantling the black-white binary in the United States. While I recognize the importance of understanding the histories and legacies of the creation of racial labels and parameters ("Asian," "Latino," etc.), I was surprised at the lack of attention paid to people of mixed lineage in the United States. Granted, De Genova mentioned the Latino identity as one associated with miscegenation, but I would have liked something more. A key part of dismantling the racial binary system in the United States, in my opinion, is recognizing the legacy of extensive racial mixing in our country.

Race, Space, and "Common Sense" in America

The main thread that held my attention throughout this week's readings was the concept of "common sense." Omi and Winant state that "race becomes 'common sense'--a way of comprehending, explaining, and acting in the world" (60). Race is definitely a lens through which we understand and interact with the world, but if spatial imaginaries differ based on racial identity and experience(s), then does a "common sense" ever exist? Is the only constant in common sense that it is relative to and dependent upon one's racialized spatial imaginary?
Schein points to "normative dimensions of any landscape" as common sense (217). Rojas further complicates the idea of common sense by pointing out the ways in which different communities clash with one another. The Mexican and Chicano community/ies in East LA make new use of and redefine the physical and cultural landscape, ultimately producing a new register of "common sense." It is when multiple "common senses" exist without mutual recognition that real social strife exists and structural inequality is ignored and/or untouched.

The notion of emotional ecosystems that is mentioned in Lipsitz's article ties into the concept of multiple common senses. We can understand a community's "common sense" in relationship with its "emotional ecosystem." Mindy Fullilove describes the destruction of black emotional ecosystems at the hands of urban renewal projects. If we stick with Omi and Winant's definition of race as common sense, then it becomes clear that an emotional ecosystem can be demolished while common sense remains intact. Both might become confused by the "common sense" the destructors hold to be true, but ultimately "common sense" has never become a universal truth in America. American hegemony, powerful as it might be, does not destroy or negate the multiplicity of racial lenses and experiences--aka the array of "common senses"-- in this country.