White people say, “White people have no culture.”

White people are pretty effed up sometimes. White people often think say things like, “White people have no culture,” and think that there is nothing racist about that statement. Macon D posted another messed up post at Stuff White People Do, quoting a White American named Shelly Tochluk who feels a “sense of loss” because she is white. Tolchuk writes:

However, many of us find ourselves looking at other groups and longing for the connection we imagine they feel with their roots, their homeland, their culture. Many white folks can be heard saying, “We don’t have culture. They have culture.”

Tolchuk is careful enough to write, “the connection we imagine they feel with their roots, their homeland, their culture,” instead of “the connection they feel with their roots, their homeland, their culture.” She also attributes in quotation marks, “We don’t have culture. They have culture,” as the sentiment of white folks, instead of making it her own claim about reality. However, the rest of the excerpt goes on to assume that these white folks’ assumptions about the cultures of people of colour are accurate.

Normally, I would write a more organized, structured, and formal post about how white people have faulty worldviews, but then I realized that explaining in explicit language why “We don’t have culture. They have culture,” is full of white privilege is a lot more complicated than I originally thought. Hence, I will post an unstructured rant instead, and hopefully, it will help me organize my thoughts so that I might create a better, structured post later on.

Tolchuk writes:

I know that I am not alone. I hear the same sentiments too much from other white people. If anything, this is one of the truest hallmarks of whiteness that I have yet encountered. There is a hole within many of us, created when our families gave up our culture in order to be successful in the United States.

Guess what, Ms. Tolchuk? People of colour do not have the option to become white even if we wanted to. Being white is a choice for you; it is not for people who have dark skin or non-Caucasian facial features. Don’t you think that of the millions of people of colour in North America, many would give up anything in order to become successful? Many of us have already lost our culture, yet no matter how white we act and how severed we are from our roots, we can’t pass as white.

What people of colour have that white people don’t is not culture. What people of colour have that white people don’t is racialization. How can you speak about “my culture” when you don’t even know what “my culture” is? How can you speak about “my homeland” when you don’t even know what “my homeland” is? If you’re a typical white person and I tell you my ethnicity, you would assume that my culture is “Chinese” and my homeland is “China”. This is incorrect. My homeland is Canada, and my culture is Canadian. I have never been to China, and I don’t know what Chinese culture consists of. If you’re a typical white person, you would tell me, “But that’s not your culture.” If you’re typical white person, you would believe that you know better than me about what my culture is and where my homeland is located. You would feel “jealous” that you don’t have a connection to a foreign country, assuming it’s something that I have because I can’t pass as white.

Your worldview is based on the faulty assumption that we don’t pass as white because we didn’t give up our culture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation#Theoretical_explanations

The first, classic and new assimilation model sees immigrants and native-born people following a “straight-line” or a convergence. This theory sees immigrants becoming more similar over time in norms, values, behaviors, and characteristics. This theory also expects those immigrants residing the longest in the host population, as well as the members of later generations, to show greater similarities with the majority group than immigrants who have spent less time in the host society.

The old model of assimilation was based on the historical assimilation of European immigrants, and the model still works for modern European immigrants because they are white. Although not all white Europeans today were considered white historically, they became white because the definition of whiteness changed to include them. This model also doesn’t take into account the fact that similarity judgements by white people factor in race. Visible people of colour cannot be “assimilated” like white Europeans not because we choose to retain our cultures, but because the current definition of whiteness excludes us and makes us appear dissimilar. Notice how a second-generation white German American can become white in one generation, but a seventh-generation Asian American can never become white no matter what she does, besides gaining white Caucasian physical features.

It’s not culture; it’s racialization. This is what I have that you don’t have. It’s nothing to feel a sense of loss over, and the very fact that you think I have culture that you don’t have because I’m not white is an example of how you otherize me and think of me as a perpetual foreigner.

Here is an excerpt from Rita Rico, MA, C.Phil, that recognizes and articulates the conceptual errors of most assimilation models. She uses the example of Latin@s.

Panethnic Latinidad: Political Identity Formations and Mobilizations in Contemporary Los Angeles:

Immigrant Groups Assimilation theories maintain that migrants who arrive in the US shed most of their ethnic and cultural backgrounds to become incorporated into mainstream American life (Alba and Nee 2006: 125).

In this section, I argue that assimilation theories 1) attempt to fit Latinos into a model created to understand the incorporation of European immigrants, one that allows for the eventual disappearance of ethnic markers and subsequent easy entry into the host society. 2) This often leads assimilationists to describe Latinos as a grouping of ethnicities, rather than a racial group. Doing so allows Latinos to be seen as neo-European immigrants who have not assimilated because of their own cultural deficiencies and not because of the host society’s treatment of them. Finally, 3) assimilationists do not question panethnic sentiments as all Latino groups are seen as essentially the same as immigrants. Further, assimilationists are unable to understand the difference in the treatment of Latinos from European immigrants because their analysis does not account for racialization.

Assimilation theories assumed that European immigrants would eventually form a unified part of the white racial identity. Gordon’s notion of acculturation, as the minority group’s adoption of cultural patterns of the host society and structural assimilation into Anglo-American society, as well as Gans straight-line assimilation of progressive generational adjustment and incorporation represent the diversity of mechanisms by which assimilation is thought to occur (Alba and Nee 2006: 127). In addition, segmented assimilation attempts to recognize that discrimination may taint the assimilation progression of immigrants, but still largely accepts the normative and conceptual premise of assimilation that immigrants should choose upward mobility by attaining American cultural fluency (Bean and Stevens 2003: 101). Despite Alba and Nee’s attempt to restore the notion of assimilation as complimentary to ethnicity and imperative for children of immigrants to avoid the temptation to drop out of school and join the inner-city underclass, (2003: 129) assimilation theories remain rooted in white hegemonic perspectives that cannot account for processes of racialization towards non-European immigrants. The majority of early European immigrants enjoyed phenotypic privilege, or light skin, and thus had less difficulty proving their whiteness than other groups with darker skin tones. Nevertheless, assimilationist theories have been unproblematically applied to Latino ethnic groups. 6

Therefore, assimilation theories approach Latino groups as ethnic groups rather than racial ones that would align them with African-American identities to maintain both the conceptual segregation of blacks and whites, as well as the normative assumption that Latinos are capable of achieving whiteness. Nevertheless, US-born Latinos and Latino immigrants experience racialization in a way that distinguishes them from whites and European immigrants. Rocco argues that Latinos are consistently perceived as perpetual foreigners despite their longstanding history in the US (2004: 21). Assimilationists almost always place the impetus of belonging as the responsibility of the migrant, and do not recognize xenophobia and racialization as factors negatively influencing incorporation (Waldinger 1999, 2007, Alba and Nee 2007). Thus, assimilation theories do not take into account the institutional limitations to full membership and citizenship.

(emphasis mine)

Like many white people, Tochluk confuses race with culture, and racism with cultural difference. White people can give up their cultural heritage and become white, but visible people of colour cannot, not because we can’t give up our cultural heritage, but because cultural heritage and non-whiteness are two different things. It doesn’t work, because we have already tried it; I have tried it. Takao Ozawa tried it in 1922, and it didn’t work. Bhagat Singh Thind tried it in 1923, and it didn’t work. We are still considered “ethnics”, as it’s not up to us. For white people, to be “ethnic” entails having a “culture”, so that’s why white people think that non-white people automatically have culture that white people don’t.

Everyone has culture, and non-white people don’t have more of it than white people. Obviously, there’s no such thing as a cultural practise that white people have exclusively that non-white people never participate in (except perhaps white privilege). Similarly, however, there’s no such cultural practise that non-white people have exclusively that white people never participate in (except perhaps lacking white privilege). The point is that when white people assume there is such a thing as “non-white culture”, they are unconsciously labelling every cultural practise that is not in that category “white culture”. For example, according to white people, chopsticks are “non-white culture” and in opposition to forks, which are considered standard. This taxonomy implies that forks are “white culture”. This doesn’t mean that as a non-white person, I don’t use forks. It means that white people are unconsciously dividing up cultural practises into “white” and “non-white”, and “white” means “normal”, and “non-white” means weird, foreign, exotic, or other. White people don’t consciously and explicitly label forks “white culture”, because they assume that forks are culturally-neutral, which is actually an indication of ethnocentrism. White people don’t normally even use the term “non-white”, but they mean that when they say “ethnic” or “cultural”. White people don’t say that forks are “ethnic”, but they may say that about chopsticks. White people don’t think of forks as a “cultural tradition”, but they may think that about chopsticks.

When I say that “white culture” is everywhere, I call it “white” because I’m still speaking in terms of the subconscious “white”/”non-white” dichotomy that I consider illegitimate. I communicate in English, and it’s hard to use the English language with all its “white” framing to criticize the “white” framing of the English language without using the same language and “white” framing. “White” is a social construct, and when I refer to “white culture”, I am still referring to the social construct, not something outside of this construct.

To summarize, Shelly Tochluk has white privilege and feels a “sense of loss” because she thinks that (only) white people have no culture. By even making such a claim, even if implicit, Tolchuk otherizes people of colour and views us as unassimilable perpetual foreigners that have foreign loyalties and different mindsets. Her assumptions are based on no evidence, but on speculation and on the unanimousness of white opinion, at least within the sample of white people she has talked with. Tolchuk thinks that a person’s culture can determined from a person’s racial features, but what she assumes to be culture is actually racialization and being considered exotic. White people have “white culture”, but “white culture” is not about the race of the person practising it, but about how it’s considered “normal” instead of foreign, exotic, and other. The vernacular concept of “culture” is racialized, although technically, all human beings have and participate in culture.

66 Responses to “White people say, “White people have no culture.””

  1. jwbe Says:

    There is some irony in the English phrase “whites have no culture”. In German this also means “don’t have manners”.

    I also think that it comes from white people’s assumptions about culture and that there aren’t also regional etc differences in non-white culture. On “multikulti-events” this becomes clear, foreign culture is reduced to music, clothing, some art and dancing. Many of it isn’t real, but for European visitors.

  2. macon d Says:

    Thanks for the link, Restructure! For anyone who might still be reading this comment thread, I left the following comment at Restructure!’s blog, where, on the basis of several paragraphs from a book that I reprinted for this post, Restructure! writes about what an “effed up” white person Shelly Tochluk is:

    Thanks Restructure! for these apparently preliminary thoughts. I hope that if you do revise this, as you say you hope to do, you read Tochluk’s book first. You seem to set her up here as a hopelessly ignorant racist on the basis of a few paragraphs from her book, but in it, she fully acknowledges elsewhere most or all of what you’re ranting about here. The two of you (and me) are much more in agreement than you seem to realize.

    Yes, of course it’s ridiculous to look at a non-white face and assume that person has some deep connection to a culture–Tochluk’s paragraphs, and my post, are an effort to understand why so many white people do that, and why they don’t seem to have some sort of collective, simply “white” culture of their own to grab onto themselves. That’s not to say there isn’t actually something we could identify as “white culture” (though I’m still not sure that’s even possible). Rather, it’s to say that white Americans themselves generally don’t perceive something they can collectively grasp and affirm as simply “white culture,” as opposed to such white subsets as Southern (white) culture, or Irish American/Irish culture, and so on.

    Yes, as you wrote, “racialization” is important here, and when it comes to white folks today, they’ve been racialized as well. And one result is that in racial terms, they usually think of themselves as individuals, and of non-white people as members of more or less homogeneous groups. One manifestation of having been atomized by this individualization process is that white people don’t perceive some collective, simply “white” culture of their own, and they do tend to perceive others as having it.

    So some white Americans, many of whom aren’t even sure which countries their relatives came from, feel a lack, a “hole” in this sense, and as Tochluk writes, some of them reach out to what seem to be other cultures in an effort to fill that lack. Many suburban white boys, as we know, do this with supposedly black, urban hip hop culture–they see nothing around them in the suburbs to embrace, and nothing “white” they want to embrace either; they also don’t see some sort of “white culture” (though they might see “suburban” or “white suburban” culture). Tochluk and I both say we’ve done that ourselves in our own ways, and we know that’s wrong, and we’re trying to expose that common white tendency. We say that, in part, in an effort to understand better why even “well-educated” white Americans do this. And also as an effort to excise from ourselves the socially induced tendency toward egregious Otherizing that you mostly seem to be writing about here.

  3. macon d Says:

    {oops, sorry for any confusion, obviously that first paragraph of mine shouldn’t be here}

  4. jwbe Says:

    >So some white Americans, many of whom aren’t even sure which countries their relatives came from, feel a lack, a “hole” in this sense, and as Tochluk writes, some of them reach out to what seem to be other cultures in an effort to fill that lack.

    Do you believe that there is something like a monolithic “Black culture” or “Asian culture”.
    How many African Americans do you believe know about which country their ancestors where kidnapped from? When the argument goes “whites have no culture” because of giving up their original countries culture (and oh noooooooo, they didn’t bring their culture with them, because white American culture is the summary of many different cultures, including European ones), why do you assume that there is a single “Black culture”.

    I find it interesting how eager you always are to defend whites

  5. macon d Says:

    No jw, I don’t think there is something like a monolithic “Black culture” or “Asian culture.” Why do you think I think there is such a thing?

    My writings on my blog and elsewhere are all about working against the ongoing realities and workings of white supremacy. Why do you think I’m always eager to defend whites, and why do you think that’s “interesting”?

  6. Kathy Says:

    This is my response to Tochluk’s “hole”

    “know that I am not alone. I hear the same sentiments too much from other white people. If anything, this is one of the truest hallmarks of whiteness that I have yet encountered. There is a hole within many of us, created when our families gave up our culture in order to be successful in the United States.” Shelly Tochluk

    My response:
    The white imaginary “hole” of culture is another way that white people can avoid honest discussion of what it means to be white and privileged. White people focus so much on the past, but let’s talk about today, right now, at this very moment. What happened during the presidential campaign to Barack Obama is classic white liberal feminist privilege. When Clinton’s plants called Obama an “inadequate black male” or “uppity” or “lucky to be black” the white liberal feminist denied that these statements were racialist, and exercised some of the most spiteful attacks, not just on Obama, but all people of color.
    The white imaginary “hole” of culture is really the “hole” felt from doing nothing, saying nothing, never standing up to fellow white people, never going to metaphorical war with your white family.

    The white imaginary “hole” of culture allows white people to sidestep, not the past, but the present, from ignoring racial abuse on the school playground, to letting some white person take up all the seats on a train with luggage, while an elderly person of color stands. The “hole” of culture is nothing more than a defense, a way to keep on pretending that you want to give up what you are afraid to give up. White people have never had to give up white culture. That Tochluk is an educator is a prime example of what is wrong with our white education system. Useless for progress, dangerous for the work needed to be done.

  7. jwbe Says:

    >I hope that if you do revise this, as you say you hope to do, you read Tochluk’s book first. You seem to set her up here as a hopelessly ignorant racist on the basis of a few paragraphs from her book, but in it, she fully acknowledges elsewhere most or all of what you’re ranting about here.

    If you expect any of your readers to first always read the books you mention to be able to comment or to have own thoughts on what you quote, then your citations are wrong.

    >Why do you think I think there is such a thing?

    because of many of your posts on your blog.

    >Why do you think I’m always eager to defend whites, and why do you think that’s “interesting”?

    Yes, interesting was probably the wrong word. It should be ‘telling’. Or ‘no suprise’.
    And you defend whites and whiteness, if you want to realize this or not. It’s probably your mental whiteness which prevents you from “unmaking Macon”

  8. macon d Says:

    Kathy, have you read Tochluk’s book? Or are you condemning her on the basis of a mere few paragraphs from it? If you haven’t read it, I think you’d like it, since it seems to me that she expresses agreement in it with most of what you just wrote here.

  9. jwbe Says:

    the first paragraph from tochluks website:
    http://www.witnessingwhiteness.com/

    I admit, I can’t take any white anti-racist seriously who confines white supremacy just to a) America and b) to race. I also consider the election of Obama more nuanced and whites, see my post on stuffwhitepeoplesay, don’t play a very great part in it and therefore they are all definitely the wrong people to be proud.

  10. Kathy Says:

    macon,

    like jwbe, i think the most telling thing would be the actual excerpt that you chose from Tochluk’s book. Because no matter what the books says, the message is clearly illustrated by that particular choice.

  11. “White people have no culture.” « Stuff White People Say Says:

    […] published asWhite people say, “White people have no culture.” at […]

  12. space Says:

    ah…that good ol’ myth. There are two versions I tend to hear of “whites have no culture:”

    a) the one described above, that it’s a sad thing, that we’ve all lost our European roots…or that we wish we didn’t have only those generic European roots.

    b) The notion that it’s actually better not to have a culture, or to be “postcultural” or “multicultural.” When my younger sister told me about this dumb idea (presenting it as a dumb idea, of course), I said that it sounded like the old “civilized vs. savage” thing. She agreed…it’s the new version of that attitude.

  13. Mélanie Says:

    I think this whole “hole” in white culture might have something to do with how Tim Wise describes it. He’d ask people to write down what do they like about their race.
    When it came to what he would often see whites write down, asides from everything in their lists being privileges, not one of them was about what white people liked about being white.

  14. Nquest Says:

    No jw, I don’t think there is something like a monolithic “Black culture” or “Asian culture.” Why do you think I think there is such a thing?

    Well, given how you’ve made this “no White culture” claim and said it in contrast to non-white groups which, by definition, suggests that you believe there is something as “Black culture” vs. urban/hip hop Black culture or Northern vs. Southern Black culture, etc.

    Somehow, you’re able to talk about “suburban white culture” and maintain this concept of a “lack” of “white” culture be fail to consider how non-white “culture” is regionalized as well. And, as Restructure’s post alludes to, the diversity among Latino (and Asian) groups make the talk about White subsets moot.

    And the last thing you should ever talk about is people knowing their ancestral homeland especially when there are White people who disparage the “African American” nomenclature because, unlike Theresa Heinz-Kerry, so-called Black people “have never been to Africa”, yada, yada, yada…

    It would be better for you and anyone else making the claim to actually get at what you mean and what you think is “lost.” It’s clear that this is another instance when the focus should be on Whites and Whiteness. Even alluding to POC complicates whatever it is you’re trying to get at because there is simply little, if anything, that you can point to in the type of comparisons ya’ll are doing that goes beyond the feelings you have and actually match the reality.

    From a Whiteness perspective, it’s clear how White ethnics did, in fact, often trade in their groups ethnic/cultural heritage for the greater Whiteness. And maybe that’s the answer to the question I have about the way Whites seem to tie their identity so closely with the idea of what it is to be “American.”

    From what I gather, that’s the collective culture Whites suggest/express they have. Indeed, White and American are often used interchangeably or seen as one-in-the-same. The Rev. Wright saga was one of the recent events that illustrated that.

  15. macon d Says:

    Nquest wrote:

    From a Whiteness perspective, it’s clear how White ethnics did, in fact, often trade in their groups ethnic/cultural heritage for the greater Whiteness. And maybe that’s the answer to the question I have about the way Whites seem to tie their identity so closely with the idea of what it is to be “American.”

    Exactly. “American” came to mean, explicitly and then implicitly, “white.” Especially in the minds of white Americans.

    It would be better for you and anyone else making the claim to actually get at what you mean and what you think is “lost.” It’s clear that this is another instance when the focus should be on Whites and Whiteness. Even alluding to POC complicates whatever it is you’re trying to get at because there is simply little, if anything, that you can point to in the type of comparisons ya’ll are doing that goes beyond the feelings you have and actually match the reality.

    But the focus is on whites and whiteness, and especially on what white folks commonly do. In this case, POC are in the picture because Tochluk’s focus, and mine in many of my posts, is on how being white often means thinking about and approaching POC in various objectionable, homogenizing, exoticizing and so on ways. So yeah, talking about POC does complicate the discussion of this facet of whiteness, of common white tendencies, but please keep in mind that the focus is not on what actual POC may or may not be like, but rather, what white people commonly THINK they’re like, and why they think that, and how they act on such thoughts. So, to leave out POC, or common conceptions of POC, would mean failing to address this large and important area of whiteness, and how it works, and what it does (or rather, leads people to do).

  16. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    Thanks Restructure! for these apparently preliminary thoughts. I hope that if you do revise this, as you say you hope to do, you read Tochluk’s book first. You seem to set her up here as a hopelessly ignorant racist on the basis of a few paragraphs from her book, but in it, she fully acknowledges elsewhere most or all of what you’re ranting about here. The two of you (and me) are much more in agreement than you seem to realize.

    Are you saying that paragraphs you quoted are a white perception that Tolchuk debunks later on in the book, but you decided to post the articulated white perception but not the debunking, thereby strengthening this common white perception among your white readers? If your blog is an “anti-racist” blog, why would you post the white perception and not the debunking of this idea, and present it as representative of Tolchuk’s book?

    If this is what you’re doing, you’re definitely quoting Tolchuk out of context. Often, philosophers first summarize their opponent’s argument at the beginning of the paper before launching their criticisms. If you selected somebody’s summary of the opponent’s argument and presented it as a quote from that person, you would be quoting this person out of context, and misrepresenting their views.

    Also, why then did you defend this common white perception? Are you playing the teacher/expert role in some kind of Socratic dialogue, asking questions from a view that isn’t really yours, to teach your “students” something about race and culture?

    Furthermore, if Tolchuk debunks this later on, why does she still feel a “sense of loss”? Why does she identify with the actor on stage? Is this about contrasting an old Tolchuk with a new Tolchuk?

    No jw, I don’t think there is something like a monolithic “Black culture” or “Asian culture.” Why do you think I think there is such a thing?

    “get used to blackness” and “shake hands our way”.

  17. nezua Says:

    well, i do think part of being “white” is not being attached to the culture of your ancestors and their respective origins and traditions and lands and joining a homogenous mix that is, essentially, devoid of meaning aside from the cycle of capitalism and self-interest we are told is so very “American.” (Speaking for those here in USA). and i think that has a purpose, functions as perpetuating this allegiance to not much but the spending/buying/consuming cycle, and certainly no other lands that we get into tense political arrangements with, or are at war with. and i do think mainstream USA culture, being built as it is on so many fictions and unsatisfying concepts leaves those without tradition and culture in their lives feeling empty. however, you make some good points, and i do not think the ideas i just stated are mutually exclusive with many of them. such as the fact that people make assumptions about those who do not look white (such as them being a rep for all others of that kind, or having culture they may not).

  18. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    the focus is not on what actual POC may or may not be like, but rather, what white people commonly THINK they’re like, and why they think that, and how they act on such thoughts.

    Yes, ideally, that’s how it should be, plus articulating how it fits into white supremacy and trying to dismantle said white supremacy. However, why would you select that quote, which is just an expanded and sentimental version of what typical white people already think, and not post the criticism of it?

    Also, if you agree with what you just said, what is your excuse for “shake hands our way”?

  19. Nquest Says:

    So, to leave out POC, or common conceptions of POC, would mean failing to address this large and important area of whiteness, and how it works, and what it does (or rather, leads people to do).

    Bullsh*t. You don’t have to talk about POC to say “some white Americans, many of whom aren’t even sure which countries their relatives came from, feel a lack, a “hole” in this sense.”

  20. jwbe Says:

    >So, to leave out POC, or common conceptions of POC, would mean failing to address this large and important area of whiteness, and how it works, and what it does (or rather, leads people to do).

    They either feel a loss or they don’t which is independend of the presence of any other culture.

  21. Restructure! Says:

    Nquest, I think talking about racist stereotypes that white people have about POC makes sense within anti-racism. However, it should be a critical discussion, not just restating racist stereotypes in detail.

  22. Restructure! Says:

    All right, I read it again, and he did say “leave out POC”. If Macon D means what he wrote, then I agree with Nquest and jwbe.

  23. macon d Says:

    R! wrote: All right, I read it again, and he did say “leave out POC”. If Macon D means what he wrote, then I agree with Nquest and jwbe.

    What?

  24. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    “POC” and “white conceptions of POC” are vastly different things. Your sentence can be read as saying that (i) discussions of whiteness should mention both POC and white conceptions of POC, or (ii) discussions of whiteness should mention POC, otherwise known as conceptions of POC.

    Both interpretations are wrong, as for ‘i’, you don’t need to talk about POC, only white conceptions of POC, and for ‘ii’, POC are not one-dimensional stereotypes.

    I, for some reason, misread your sentence and didn’t see that you were not just talking about white conceptions of POC that should be included, but POC themselves.

  25. Nquest Says:

    They either feel a loss or they don’t which is independent of the presence of any other culture.

    Exactly.

  26. macon d Says:

    I, for some reason, misread your sentence and didn’t see that you were not just talking about white conceptions of POC that should be included, but POC themselves.

    Where did I say that? I want to talk about white conceptions of POC in this context, not POC themselves.

  27. macon d Says:

    They either feel a loss or they don’t which is independent of the presence of any other culture.

    Exactly.

    Er, not exactly–the loss they feel is often not independent of a white conception of another culture. Perceiving another, supposed, and non-white culture can make white people feel as if they don’t have one. Thus, talking about white conceptions of other cultures, in the midst of understanding how whiteness encourages people to think and act, is worthwhile.

  28. macon d Says:

    Oh, I think R! means this sentence of mine: So, to leave out POC, or common conceptions of POC, would mean failing to address this large and important area of whiteness, and how it works, and what it does (or rather, leads people to do).

    I think that should read “or rather common conceptions of POC.”

  29. macon d Says:

    R! quoting me:

    No jw, I don’t think there is something like a monolithic “Black culture” or “Asian culture.” Why do you think I think there is such a thing?

    R!: “get used to blackness” and “shake hands our way”.

    The latter post doesn’t present a monolithic conception on my part of blackness. The former is now headed by a repudiation by me that says I no longer stand by it, although I don’t know that it presents a belief on my part of a monolithic “black culture” that all black people have access to and practice.

  30. macon d Says:

    Macon D,

    R! quoted me saying “the focus is not on what actual POC may or may not be like, but rather, what white people commonly THINK they’re like, and why they think that, and how they act on such thoughts.”

    R! wrote, “Yes, ideally, that’s how it should be, plus articulating how it fits into white supremacy and trying to dismantle said white supremacy. However, why would you select that quote, which is just an expanded and sentimental version of what typical white people already think, and not post the criticism of it?

    The quote itself has criticism of it. It’s clearly written by a later Shelly Tochluk who’s writing about an earlier version of herself. That earlier version of herself was struck by an artist critiquing in a performance piece common white consumption of bits of supposed non-white culture. It was a moment in which an earlier version of Tochluk was beginning to understand something about herself, and about whiteness, that the later version of herself clearly understands much better, as can be seen in how she put together what those paragraphs have to say.

    Why would I select this quote? Because it’s a critique of something white people often do, as well as a portrait of someone white waking up to that; that it can be read as such is, and that some white readers can relate to that, is demonstrated by some of the post’s comments.

  31. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    Yes, I mean that sentence. However, “POC” and “conceptions of POC” are vastly different things, such that even if it was “or rather common conceptions of POC” instead, it sounds like you are clarifying a nuance or that you are distinguishing between the two as an afterthought. Confusing “conceptions of POC” with POC themselves is a pretty huge part of what racism is. That you wrote your sentence that way makes it seem that you are not working from a mental framework that sees the two in opposition.

    Shake Hands Our Way implies that race determines culture and cultural preference, e.g., you say that when a White American and African American meet, there is cultural confusion/opposition/difference. Get Used To Blackness implies that blackness is white people’s conceptions of blackness, e.g., daps, hip-hop, and ebonics.

  32. macon d Says:

    That you wrote your sentence that way makes it seem that you are not working from a mental framework that sees the two in opposition.

    Well,, however what’s going on in my head seems to you, I do see them in opposition. Okay?

    I disagree with your reading of the implications of “shake hands our way.” And as I recall that post that I wrote, what, four or five months ago? it doesn’t say that when a White American and African American meet, that always happens–only sometimes. Anyway, implications don’t seem worth discussing this way–if a post implies something to you, it could well imply something to others. If you’re going to critique my writings, wouldn’t it be better to deal with what they actually state, rather than what you think they imply?

  33. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    The quote itself has criticism of it. It’s clearly written by a later Shelly Tochluk who’s writing about an earlier version of herself. That earlier version of herself was struck by an artist critiquing in a performance piece common white consumption of bits of supposed non-white culture. It was a moment in which an earlier version of Tochluk was beginning to understand something about herself, and about whiteness, that the later version of herself clearly understands much better, as can be seen in how she put together what those paragraphs have to say.

    It may seem obvious to you because you’ve read the book, but it’s not obvious to someone that doesn’t know the context. Imagine a robot reading it very literally that cannot detect sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek comments (which would require a nuanced understanding of race that most white people don’t have, including your readers).

    Why would I select this quote? Because it’s a critique of something white people often do, as well as a portrait of someone white waking up to that; that it can be read as such is, and that some white readers can relate to that, is demonstrated by some of the post’s comments.

    Hmm, I think this is a persistent problem. What you think your readers are agreeing with may not be what they are actually agreeing with. Clueless white people on the internet may read it as support for the argument that it’s so hard to be white, and white people have it so bad. These people would agree with Tolchuk that since white people shouldn’t appropriate “other” cultures, white people are stuck with unique, personal challenges that don’t affect non-whites.

    If you read your white readers’ comments again with this interpretation in mind, then you will see that they are also consistent with this interpretation, i.e., white self-pity party.

  34. Nquest Says:

    Er, not exactly–the loss they feel is often not independent of a white conception of another culture.

    Chickenshit. Other cultures become a proxy and not the essence of the feeling. As I said on SWPS, conversations about Gen. X didn’t and never had to include comparisons between or references to other cultures.

    Also, the one thing you mentioned before, frankly, couldn’t have been the product of “a white conception of another culture”:

    some white Americans, many of whom aren’t even sure which countries their relatives came from, feel a lack, a “hole” in this sense

  35. macon d Says:

    I see what you mean, R!, but anything one writes has to be pitched at some level. I don’t read those comments as a white self-pity party. And I don’t think it requires reading the book to see what I’ve said by way of interpreting the quotation, especially if one reads through to the description of the performance artist, and Tochluk’s reaction to the performance. Also, I often like to give my readers credit for being able to figure some things out themselves, without me having to spell out every last nuance and meaning. But, you’re right, there’s a danger there, especially with sensitive and dangerous topics like racism, so I’m not saying your point isn’t well taken. OTOH, I clearly disagree that the post and the quote and Shelly Tochluk herself are “effed up” and “messed up.”

  36. macon d Says:

    Nq, quoting me: Er, not exactly–the loss they feel is often not independent of a white conception of another culture.

    Nq: Chickenshit.

    What? As I understand that word, it’s used to describe a person who’s afraid of something. If that’s how you’re using it, what do you think I’m afraid of? And if you’re using it some other way, what do you mean by it?

    Nq: Other cultures become a proxy and not the essence of the feeling.

    For whom?

    Nq: As I said on SWPS, conversations about Gen. X didn’t and never had to include comparisons between or references to other cultures.

    Were those conversations about the whiteness of white Gen Xers? And what conversations are you talking about? Who had them, and where?

    Nq, have you read Toni Morrison’s study of whiteness, Playing in the Dark? If so, do you think she should not have spoken of the “white literary imagination” in terms of its persistent misuse of an “Africanist presence”? And instead only done so by speaking about white authors only in terms of their whiteness? If so, why? What was lost in Morrison’s analysis by discussing their persistent use of an “Africanist presence”?

  37. Nquest Says:

    “shake hands our way”

    “if a white and a non-white person encounter each other in a casual setting and decide to clasp hands, there may be uncertainty about which handshaking method to use… The non-white person often represses a preferred method of contact, and the white person feels little if any discomfort about being the enforcer of a standard.”

    Yet, somehow, Whites feel a “real sense of loss”….

    Anyway, Restructure was being charitable. You made a strong statement that that race determines culture and cultural preference. In fact, you wanted to argue the point that you knew Blacks had a “preferred method of [handshake] contact” and that you knew Blacks were “repressing” their desire to use their “preferred method” — which had to be the “Black handshake” because, to you, they’re Black so that’s what they prefer — because you had witness hundreds of handshakes which apparently qualified you as the reader of hundreds of Black people’s minds.

  38. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    Well,, however what’s going on in my head seems to you, I do see them in opposition. Okay?

    Then you are using the same term for two different concepts that need to be separate, which may even be the source of conflict of this longstanding debate we have with you about whether talking about whiteness should require talking about POC.

    And as I recall that post that I wrote, what, four or five months ago?

    This is not about your identity as a good person/bad person. This is about what the posts says.

    it doesn’t say that when a White American and African American meet, that always happens–only sometimes. Anyway, implications don’t seem worth discussing this way–if a post implies something to you, it could well imply something to others. If you’re going to critique my writings, wouldn’t it be better to deal with what they actually state, rather than what you think they imply?

    All right. However, your post still discusses “what actual POC may or may not be like”.

  39. macon d Says:

    You made a strong statement that that race determines culture and cultural preference.

    No, I didn’t. That’s a misreading of that post.

  40. macon d Says:

    Then you are using the same term for two different concepts that need to be separate, which may even be the source of conflict of this longstanding debate we have with you about whether talking about whiteness should require talking about POC.

    Well, clearing that up seems like a good thing. But then, wouldn’t you have to find someone else to kick around? (Just KIDDING! That’s allowed, I hope.)

    So what, exactly, is the same term you think I’m using, and what are the two different concepts that need to be separate? What I’m seeing so far is “POC” and something like “fallacious white concepts of POC” . . .

    R quoting M: And as I recall that post that I wrote, what, four or five months ago?

    R: This is not about your identity as a good person/bad person. This is about what the posts says.

    I didn’t think it was, your Honor. I just meant something like, “Don’t quote me on this, I’m talking about something I wrote a long, long time ago.”

  41. Nquest Says:

    No one is talking about Tony Morrison, Macon. Stop trying to change the subject and ask me rhetorical questions because you find yourself without the ability or tools to make the case for what you keep trying to claim.

    A White person who doesn’t know where they family came from doesn’t arrive at that feeling of loss because they live in a society where non-whites do. Until you deal with that, you have absolutely no reason to think I should ever address one of your questions. And this says it all…

    I don’t think it requires reading the book to see what I’ve said…

    Dumbazz!! That was the very tactic you used to try to deflect criticism. You suggested Restructure and Kathy read the book and you certainly expressed how reading the book was necessary for Restructure not to see Tochluk as “a hopelessly ignorant racist on the basis of a few paragraphs from her book.”

  42. Nquest Says:

    No, I didn’t. That’s a misreading of that post.

    Bullsh*t. There is no other way to read this nonsense:
    The non-white person often represses a preferred method of contact

    Which is why you didn’t and can’t speak to what was wrong with my reading of your post and, more importantly, how you post did/was suppose to read.

    That’s (your behavior) Chickenshit 101.

  43. Restructure! Says:

    And I don’t think it requires reading the book to see what I’ve said by way of interpreting the quotation, especially if one reads through to the description of the performance artist, and Tochluk’s reaction to the performance.

    You know what, now that I read Tochluk’s quote again, I’m less convinced that you understand what I’m criticizing.

    Here:

    There was something very discomforting about seeing her that way. I recognized that woman. She was me. Or at least, she had been me. She was my mother. She was my grandmother, perhaps to some lesser degree. I felt that, that blandness, that plainness, that whiteness. I felt her whiteness as a lack, a loss. I felt this loss in my bones. I could barely move as I was reminded of how I loved what other cultures have precisely because I know the emptiness that results when tradition is traded in for whiteness.

    She’s saying that there is a blandness/plainness unique to whites, and that she has a unique “loss” because she is white. That a white performance artist is mocking and expressing white people’s feeling of loss does not challenge the whole performance in which POC are portrayed as having culture that white people don’t.

    When I am criticizing this, my point isn’t “white people bad” and my point isn’t about cultural appropriation. The performance she attended still supported the white racial frame, as it says that the white person lacks culture that POC have, regardless of how whites react to this perceived loss.

    When white people say that they are “jealous”, my problem isn’t that they may want to appropriate “my culture”. My problem is that I too feel a loss of culture, and that white people’s loss is not unique, not a special burden of whiteness. However, white people may not realize that I feel a loss because they think of POC as a monolith, e.g., if one Chinese person retains Chinese cultural practise X, then all Chinese people have retained it.

  44. macon d Says:

    No one is talking about Tony Morrison, Macon. Stop trying to change the subject and ask me rhetorical questions because you find yourself without the ability or tools to make the case for what you keep trying to claim.

    I’m not trying to change the subject–what I’m asking you about here is very on topic, and has nothing to do with some lack of ability or “tools.”

    And what is it that you think I “keep trying to claim”?

    A White person who doesn’t know where they family came from doesn’t arrive at that feeling of loss because they live in a society where non-whites do. Until you deal with that, you have absolutely no reason to think I should ever address one of your questions.

    A white person certainly can arrive at that feeling of loss because they live in a society where non-whites do. They can also arrive at it for other reasons. There–dealt with. Now you can address even more than one of my questions. I’m not trying to avoid dealing with anything here.

    Dumbazz!!

    Whatever.

    That was the very tactic you used to try to deflect criticism. You suggested Restructure and Kathy read the book and you certainly expressed how reading the book was necessary for Restructure not to see Tochluk as “a hopelessly ignorant racist on the basis of a few paragraphs from her book.”

    That wasn’t a tactic used to try to deflect criticism. You really should stop trying to read my mind, because your batting average is pretty close to Zero. If R and Kathy decided to jump to conclusions about Tochluk that way, that doesn’t mean that most readers would do that.

    I don’t want to get into our basic disagreements about that post again. And that’s not “chickenshit” behavior. That’s a smart avoidance of tedious, time-consuming argumentation with someone who won’t take “Let’s agree to disagree” for an answer, and dismisses points he disagrees with by blithely labeling them bs. Oops–bullsh*t.

  45. macon d Says:

    I see what you’re saying, R, thanks for the clarification. I guess I don’t quite read the quotation the same way that you do. I still see a later Tochluk critiquing the earlier version of herself for the very thing you have a problem with. I also read the performance art as doing that, though as Tochluk indicates, the setting for the piece detracts from that message.

    Why not write to her and ask what she’s up to in this passage from her book? Her e-dress is at the book’s web site:

    http://www.witnessingwhiteness.com

    I think it would be great to hear her take on this issue.

  46. nquest2xl Says:

    A white person certainly can arrive at that feeling of loss because they live in a society where non-whites do.

    More chickenshit.

    You presented that stuff like you were describing something unique to Whites which is not the case. And, because it’s not the case — that Whites are unique in terms of some White Americans don’t know where their families came from — then the exact feeling of loss Whites feel that you described doesn’t come from POC.

    All the more reason for you to get off the crutches… and stop trying to justify and rationalize your use of POC as a distraction-crutch, you and however many Whites do.

  47. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    I’m not going to write her because I haven’t read the book. I’m probably not going to read the book, because the way you have portrayed it makes it seem not worth reading, relative to other books I should read.

    But then, wouldn’t you have to find someone else to kick around? (Just KIDDING! That’s allowed, I hope.)

    I know that you’re (half) kidding, but my problem isn’t that I lack content. My problem is that I have a full time job, other social obligations, big dreams, and side projects, and I worry that I won’t have time to post all my thoughts before I die (or before my mind slows down), even if I’m in my 20s right now. Unlike runawayfred’s conception of me that I wait in the bushes with nothing better to do, I actually have a life.

    I actually would prefer it if you didn’t write “effed up” posts and comments. I’m also reacting in defense to people who think that I’m against you because you’re white, which makes absolutely no sense. Criticizing you indirectly has shown to fail, as you may not think that the post is directed at you (in addition to others), since it may apply to many other whites in different situations as well.

  48. macon d Says:

    nquest, wtf? I’m not using POC as a distraction crutch. And I didn’t say that what I was describing is something unique to white people. That feeling of loss for white people can come from their false perceptions of POC culture, and/or from other causes. And of course non-white people can and do feel cultural loss. What would be the point in denying that?

  49. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    Also, books written for white people who have only started thinking about race may not appeal to POC. Similarly, as a woman, I may not be interested in a man’s take on feminism written for men.

  50. Restructure! Says:

    Macon D,

    nquest, wtf? I’m not using POC as a distraction crutch. And I didn’t say that what I was describing is something unique to white people. That feeling of loss for white people can come from their false perceptions of POC culture, and/or from other causes. And of course non-white people can and do feel cultural loss. What would be the point in denying that?

    I think the feeling of loss for white people comes from the same loss of culture that affects POC. However, the feeling that their loss is unique to white people comes from white privilege.

  51. macon d Says:

    Also, books written for white people who have only started thinking about race may not appeal to POC. Similarly, as a woman, I may not be interested in a man’s take on feminism written for men.

    Point taken. But my initial point in recommending the book–that you shouldn’t condemn her as an effed up white person on the basis of a few paragraphs from her book–still stands. Demonstrating that you’ve actually read her book might give such an otherwise effed up estimation of her–as an effed up white person–a bit more credence. But then, what I also meant by recommending her book was that reading it would likely change your estimation of her, because its main points are very much in line with yours.

  52. nquest2xl Says:

    Macon, when did Restructure call Tochluk an “effed up white person”?

  53. macon d Says:

    Nq–In these parts of her post’s first paragraph, R! writes:

    White people are pretty effed up sometimes. White people often think say things like, “White people have no culture,” and think that there is nothing racist about that statement. . . . Tolchuk is careful enough to write, “the connection we imagine they feel with their roots, their homeland, their culture,” instead of “the connection they feel with their roots, their homeland, their culture.” She also attributes in quotation marks, “We don’t have culture. They have culture,” as the sentiment of white folks, instead of making it her own claim about reality. However, the rest of the excerpt goes on to assume that these white folks’ assumptions about the cultures of people of colour are accurate.”

    And in the last paragraph, R! writes, To summarize, Shelly Tochluk has white privilege and feels a “sense of loss” because she thinks that (only) white people have no culture.

    Ergo, R!’s post condemns Tochluk as an effed up white person because she (supposedly) thinks that (only) white people have no culture.

  54. nquest2xl Says:

    I think the feeling of loss for white people comes from the same loss of culture that affects POC. However, the feeling that their loss is unique to white people comes from white privilege.

    Macon certainly thought there was something important/significant about mentioning the sense of loss some White Americans feel because they don’t know where their relatives came from.

    It was part of a post where he was presenting the case for why Whites feel like they don’t have a culture and why Whites conceptions of POC’s culture(s), by comparison, provide them with that sense/feeling loss.

    So Macon has to explain what fantasies Whites are having about non-white cultures when something about Whites conception of POC make them think about how POC are different and have no such sense of loss and must know where their families came from… You know, in order for POC to have something Whites don’t believe Whites do…

  55. nquest2xl Says:

    Macon, you misrepresented what Restructure said. But go ahead and quote the passage from her book where she talked about some other group besides Whites as people who have no culture…

  56. jwbe Says:

    Macon,
    >I think the feeling of loss for white people comes from the same loss of culture that affects POC. However, the feeling that their loss is unique to white people comes from white privilege.

    White people as a collective comitted ethnocide, which is something very different than voluntarily assimilating into main-stream society. Trying to equalize the white loss to PoC-loss is more than arrogant.
    White people always had the choice. Those Europeans who weren’t considered white in American history could make the choice which side they would chose. They took the white side.
    The question again, how do whites who claim they have no culture, define culture?
    The next question: How is copying some parts of another culture LIVING and FEELING this culture? How does this fill the feeling of loss, when somebody copies something s/he is not connected with?
    The deeper issue of this is I think that whites cannot endure the feeling of a certain exclusion, that they don’t have access to all things on planet earth. They cannot endure that there are different ways of life and by conquering it and making it also theirs they commit ethnocide again.

  57. nquest2xl Says:

    Macon can’t even keep his idea straight in his own mind. The idea that some Whites don’t know where their relatives came from is proof that he’s talking out his azz.

    Once a White person traces their family tree back to its origins they won’t find “the land and culture of the white race.” And that’s exactly what he’s saying: that White people, as a race, don’t feel they have a culture.

    … As if culture generally correlates with race. On SWPS, dumbazz (thinking he was a smart-azz) wanted to say that “Whites and African Americans aren’t the only two racial groups in America.” That was in response to me saying how Whites can’t feel that African-Americans have something they don’t in terms of knowing where their families came from.

    Of course, dumbazz, wouldn’t or couldn’t say what “racial” group(s) Whites looked at and felt like that “racial” group could trace their RACIAL heritage back to where their families came from as if any said group wouldn’t be tracing their specific cultural/ethnic heritage.

    But this shows you how dumbazz (I mean, Macon) racializes POC beyond comprehension. Apparently, that’s all POC are: races. Apparently there aren’t various ethnic/cultural groups among Asian-Americans, Latinos, etc. To Macon, they are all the same or somehow have some kind of race-based, racial culture that Whites don’t.

    But then he freely admits that Whites view being “American” as synonymous with being White. So the whole thing is a charade which is the very reason why Macon could never effectively answer WHY Tochluk or anyone White feels like there is no White culture.

    That would require defining culture and getting at the root of the stuff they just throw out there…

  58. Melissa Says:

    Wow, this discussion has spread all over different sites…
    R! wrote:
    I think the feeling of loss for white people comes from the same loss of culture that affects POC. However, the feeling that their loss is unique to white people comes from white privilege.

    That’s probably true, especially in the US. I’m not sure what it’s like in other countries, we just don’t discuss it with people of other races. I think the view White have that POC have a certain “culture” comes from things like slavery or the Civil Rights movement. Whites didn’t experience the oppression they put on POC. I think it may be that we, as Whites, still do view POC as “other”, which we shouldn’t. They may have shared experiences as a group that Whites didn’t, but most of them have ancestors that have been in the US just as long as Whites. Any group being here that long would lose the culture of their ancestors. Maybe another part of it is that Americans tend to view America as not having a culture and being White, you tend think White first as being American, not Black or Latino or Native American. So, yeah, Whites racialize things but some of us are trying to change our thinking and some of us are realizing how much privilege we have because we are White.

  59. Melissa Says:

    Oop, I didn’t get my italics closed. Everything from “That’s probably true…” on is mine. Sorry.

  60. nquest2xl Says:

    The deeper issue of this is I think that whites cannot endure the feeling of a certain exclusion, that they don’t have access to all things on planet earth.

    Hmmm… If so, that would explain a lot.

  61. Kathy Says:

    Restructure! I really appreciate this post, it’s helped me a lot.

    I do think that white people are imagining that “hole” in order to divert their attention from the real issue, privilege and double standards. I think it must be a defense mechanism, perhaps actually feeling something seems too huge a task.

    also, I just wanted to ask about the “hand shake” reference, is that something on Macon’s blog?

  62. jwbe Says:

    >Hmmm… If so, that would explain a lot.

    It’s just an assumption but I think it’s quite true, also thinking about America’s history and controll-freak issues.

  63. jwbe Says:

    >also, I just wanted to ask about the “hand shake” reference, is that something on Macon’s blog?

    yes,
    http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2008/04/shake-hands-their-way_09.html

    and there is also a post about it on swps
    http://stuffwhitepeoplesay.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/african-american-men-dont-shake-hands-like-that/

  64. Kathy Says:

    never mind about the “hand shake”, i found it.

  65. nquest2xl Says:

    More evidence of that fraud that is our dear friend Macon:

    Another reason for this quite ornamental vacuum in literary discourse on the presence and influence of Africanist peoples in American criticism is the pattern of thinking about racialism in terms of its consequences on the victim–of always defining it assymetrically from the perspective of its impact on the object of racist policy and attitudes. A good deal of time and intelligence has been invested in the exposure of racism and the horrific results on its objects. There are constant, if erratic, liberalizing efforts to legislate these matters. There are also powerful and persuasive attempts to analyze the orign and fabrication of racism itself, contesting the assumption that it is an inevitable, permanent, and eternal part of all social landscapes. I do not wish to disparage these inquiries. It is precisely because of them that any progress at all has been accomplished in matters of racial discourse. But that well-established study should be joined with another, equally important one: the impact of racism on those who perpetuate it… The scholarship that looks into the mind, imagination, and behavior of slaves is valuable. But equally valuable is a serious intellectual effort to see what racial ideology does to the mind, imagination, and behavior of masters.

    From Toni Morrison’s, “Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination.”

    I stumbled across that while searching for “scholarly” material on White racial identity development, etc. Anyway… as we can see, Macon was grasping at straws and it’s not clear what point he was trying to make — and specifically what point of his he thought bring up Morrison would help.

    But what is clear with just this little tidbit of information of what’s discussed in Morrison’s book — which is not to be confused with Macon’s vibrating tool enhanced masturbation with the title/terms of Morrison’s book — is how Macon misrepresented what Morrison’s book is all about and looks abundantly foolish since Morrison forwards an argument I have made which is part and parcel of the one Macon was trying to argue against.

    Macon’s own expressed belief, since “Whiteness exists in a relational context”, he feels the need to Whites to stop doing this and that to POC but, per Morrison, that topics already well covered and isn’t really about Whiteness anyway. Instead, it’s a departure from it and an avoidance of the “serious intellectual” inquiry into “what racial ideology does to the mind, imagination, and behavior of” Whites.

    Macon’s focus, however, is ultimately somewhere else. He wants to be the one who tells “white people would wake the hell up and stop doing” bad things to POC.

  66. invoker Says:

    silly gook, go back to china


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: