… when their approach to Whiteness, etc. hardly breaks from the traditional-conventional mode of White liberal non-racist thinking. (I said that purposely: non-racist as opposed to anti-racist.)
Take, for instance, Macon’s rationalization for not, to use his problematic framing, “looking at Whiteness in isolation to blackness.” (paraphrase) Macon tried to rationalize his lack of focus on Whiteness which was evident in his “trust” threads.
Instead of ever asking what is it about WHITENESS and White people that make them assume they are automatically trustworthy and focusing his examination around the elements of White culture and White identity that lead to those assumptions/beliefs.
Macon chose to take the focus off the underlying issues with the Whiteness programming that produces this curious and still largely unexamined idea of White-as-trustworthy (unexamined by Macon) AND, instead,
kept the issue on a superficial level reporting to Whites, as problematic as it was, that PoC supposedly don’t trust them because they are White and probably/possibly racist.
Simply, after all that, there is still no light, much less heat, on the subject of Whiteness and what is it about Whiteness and White people that promotes this idea of White-as-trustworthy. It should also be noted that Macon never specified what kind of trust he was talking about, let alone what, if any, trust any human being should/would extend to “new” people of any group…
So, the Whiteness of it all, remains largely untouched. No consideration or discussion on:
Why do White people think that? Why is it important for White people to think that? Why would White people think that? Why would White people be surprised when PoC don’t just up and trust them and honor their Whiteness card?, etc., etc., etc.
Those type of questions seem fundamental. I would think any and every examination of Whiteness on whatever topic would start with asking questions like that — i.e. a whole host of Whiteness-centered questions that ask “WHY?”