Me and White Supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor

Week 3 focuses on allyship, specifically as a lifelong practice rather than as an identity white people can choose. In this week, Saad will cover white apathy, white centering, tokenism, white saviorism, optical allyship, and being called out/called in.

Day 15 introduces the idea of white apathy, which Saad calls a “self-preservation response” (127) that white people have when faced with their complicity in white supremacy. While white apathy is not inherently violent, it can still be dangerous. It implies that BIPOC should be the ones to dismantle white supremacy rather than white people, and that the cause of dismantling white supremacy is an awareness campaign or charitable cause in which one can choose to take part, rather than a deadly ideology. White apathy can be caused by white privilege, white fragility, white silence, white exceptionalism, racial color blindness, anti-blackness, and racist stereotypes.

White apathy can appear as fear, boredom, numbness, exhaustion, anxiety, or an inability to engage in antiracism conversations; white silence and white exceptionalism to prove the participant is the good kind of white person; not taking responsibility for their own antiracism participation; negating the seriousness of white supremacy or accusing BIPOC of playing the “race card”; and more. When white people allow apathetic inaction, it means they are okay with the status quo, they do not care that BIPOC are still discriminated against or are afraid to give up their own privilege. This day’s reflective journaling asks the participant to write down when they have been apathetic about racism in the past and times where they have seen those with white privilege in their own communities become apathetic about racism.

Moving into Day 16, Saad introduces the term “white centering,” in which whiteness is considered “normal” or “standard” and non-whiteness is seen as “other.” By centering white people and their emotions, values, and traditions, white supremacy thrives as there is no room for other voices. While centering one’s own self and identity is natural, “[i]f you unconsciously believe you are superior, then you will unconsciously believe that your worldview is the one that is superior, normal, right, and that it deserves to be at the center” (136). When people center white voices and stories, they force non-white narratives into spaces where they viewed as less important or reimagined through a white lens. This can also potentially lead to cultural appropriation.

White centering can be seen in the overrepresentation of people with white privilege in art, film, books, and creative culture; overrepresentation of people with white privilege in leadership positions as entrepreneurs and in business; white feminism’s refusal to center race as part of the struggle for gender equality; rewriting historical events using a white-centered gaze to lessen the violent implications of past racial wrongdoings; tone policing; the insistence upon saying “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter”; and more.

Acknowledging the difficulty of at first seeing white centering, Saad describes it as follows: “[l]ike a fish cannot see the water it is swimming in and like we human beings cannot see the air we breathe, white centering is like an invisible net holding up white supremacy” (138). In other words, white narratives are so normalized that people do not even realize what they are consuming. Without learning to question whiteness as a norm, people are unable to truly see how much white supremacy effects stories, business, activism, history, and culture as understood today. When white centering stops, white supremacy will lose its dominant power over the way whiteness has ruled the collective worldview. This day’s questions revolved around how the participant’s view is white-centric; reactions to spaces or conversations focused on BIPOC; when and how the participant may have centered themselves in nonwhite spaces and conversations; and more.

Day 17 opens a discussion of tokenism, in which BIPOC are used to make it appear that an organization, brand, business, or community is antiracist without doing the work. Citing her own experience with her children’s school in Qatar, which has a diverse student body but a majority white teaching staff, Saad balked when she learned the school brought on one BIPOC person “as a handy Band-Aid” (143) without actually reckoning with white supremacy and its effects—especially the white centering, white privilege, and unconscious bias of a majority white staff.

Saad breaks down four kinds of tokenism: brand tokenism, where a business has a few token BIPOC guests, cultural elements, or speakers to appear “diverse”; storytelling tokenism, when BIPOC are on screen to give the appearance of a diverse cast; emotional labor tokenism, when a person, group, or community asks the one BIPOC to do all of the emotional labor surrounding antiracism work; and relational tokenism, or the notion that a person with white privilege cannot be racist because they have a connection to a BIPOC partner, child, family member, friend, teacher, artist/author, athlete, politician, etc. These forms objectify BIPOC and render them static symbols that stand in for a white person’s desire to avoid talking about race and further their own agenda:

Tokenism looks flattering on the outside, but the truth of it is that it uses BIPOC as if they are things, not people. Tokenism says that BIPOC are only valuable to people with white privilege to the degree that they can be used for their own agenda (whether consciously or unconsciously) (146).

This day’s journaling reflections ask the participant to consider how they have justified racism in the past by proximity to BIPOC; how they may have tokenized BIPOC; how they have stayed silent when tokenism was happening; applauding organization for diversity without evidence of actual antiracism work; and more.

Day 18 is centered around white saviorism, a phenomenon in which those with white privilege feel them are superior to others and that they are obligated to “save” BIPOC, who are viewed as inferior. White saviorism has its roots in colonialist and imperialist attitudes and is a product of white centering, meaning that those who are not from white supremacist cultures are viewed by white people as being “poor” and “undeveloped” without an actual evidence of this being true.

“Voluntourism”—when people with white privilege travel to Africa or elsewhere to volunteer, often taking photos of themselves with Black children to prove their “goodness”—is an example of white saviorism. Other examples of white saviorism include missionary work; white savior protagonists in books and TV shows; white focus on BIPOC “liberation” narratives, like “freeing” Muslim women from wearing hijabs; and white people treating BIPOC as “projects” they can help.

While this may be well-intentioned, it is inherently patronizing for BIPOC. White saviorism presumes that all BIPOC are helpless and require help from those with white privilege in order to survive. It is also a remnant of colonialism—one that historically has excused the harm, abuse, torture, rape, kidnapping, enslavement, and disenfranchisement of BIPOC. Today’s questions ask the participant to consider what white savior narratives they have bought into; how they may believe BIPOC are helpless or in need of saving; how they have tried to offer unsolicited support or guidance to a BIPOC who did not need it; their reactions when BIPOC have refused their help; and more.

Day 19 delves into “optical allyship,” in which a person with white privilege performs surface-level actions to be considered an ally without actually doing anti-racist work (this is also known as performative allyship or ally theater). Saad tells the story of a British women’s spiritual festival organizer who messaged Saad and asked her to speak at their festival. They mentioned they realized their own lack of diversity, but when Saad looked up the festival, she realized they had a history of centering whiteness. When Saad asked this organizer if they completed her 28-day challenge and what they would do to protect Saad as a Black woman entering a majority white space, the organizer said she hadn’t done the challenge and had no policies in place to assure her safety. Saad turned down the offer.

It was clear this woman wanted to appear an ally on the surface but was unable to actually commit to doing antiracist work. Optical allyship is characterized by a desire to not be labelled racist without doing antiracist work; a wish to “look” diverse without meaningful policy or structural change; not partnering with BIPOC and buying into white saviorism; falling back on white fragility to avoid being held accountable; reposting antiracism posts on social media as a means of virtue signaling; reading this book and doing this challenge in order to seem cool or “woke”; being extra nice to BIPOC to be viewed as antiracist; and more.

Like other concepts discussed in Week 3, optical allyship is problematic because it centers whiteness and white fragility over the safety and integrity of BIPOC. True, active allyship is a lifelong commitment to centering are marginalized people rather than those who already hold white privilege. This day’s journaling prompts ask the participant to consider how they have practiced optical allyship in the past; the benefits they may have received from that optical allyship; reactions when called out for said optical allyship; and motivations for showing up to do the work of an ally.

On Day 20, the reflective journaling turns to focus on the act of being called out and/or being called in. “Calling out” is a public naming of a single instance or a pattern of oppressive language and behavior. “Calling in,” however, refers to a marginalized person speaking privately with a person who did or said something problematic in order to address the behavior. Being called out or called in can often trigger white fragility for those with white privilege because it involves pointing out “problematic, harmful, and oppressive behaviors with the ultimate aim being changed behavior and the making of amends” (162).

People with white privilege often cause harm when being called out or called in because they are unable to overcome their white fragility to truly listen, apologize, and plan to do better in the future. Rather than demand perfection from one’s self or combat natural defensiveness, Saad places an emphasis on the fact that a person’s intention can be good, but their actions can still have a negative impact. A poor reaction to being called out/called in may appear as becoming defensive, crying, falling silent, or leaving the conversation; emphasizing intention rather than impact; tone policing; claiming racial color blindness; trying to bandage up the problem quickly in order to maintain optical allyship; and more.

Being called out or called in can feel like an attack for a white person or person with white privilege, but without reflecting on their own reactions, those with white privilege will be unable to handle the inevitable discomfort of antiracist work. Rather than avoiding being called out or called in, Saad points out that everyone will be called out/in at some point while doing antiracist work because mistakes are inevitable. This discomfort also does not rival the discomfort BIPOC feel due to white supremacy every single day. Today’s questions revolve around the participant’s own feelings or thoughts about having been called in/out; how they think they may react to it; their fears about being called in/out; and what behaviors or beliefs might get in the way of adequately responding when called in/out.

Day 21 reviews the week, reflecting on how the behaviors, actions, and thought patterns covered are important to understanding allyship as a lifelong practice. The final reflective journaling prompts for this day involve writing down the participant’s own “unique” brand of white supremacy; patterns of previously normalized problematic behavior; addressing larger challenges when doing personal antiracism work; acknowledging where they may be holding back; and connecting the dots between concepts the participant has written about so far.