Melanocentrism. It means that only the non-White experience is taken seriously, and that only the non-White perspective matters, or is considered valid or worthy. It means that only the non-White voice is ever really heard. But perspectives are a possession of every living thing on the planet. White people have perspectives too, and experiences, and those are valid, worthy, and need to—have a right to—be heard and taken seriously.
I ran across an interesting reflection a little while back (I actually wrote this the day I saw it, but I got busy and couldn’t post it for a while) by a Black blogger, born in Jamaica, about his perspective of what it is like socially to interact with the wider non-Black, White-majority public, and particularly with police officers, in America, as compared to his social interaction with the public in majority-Black Jamaica. This post is not so much an answer per se, to this Black author, but rather a reflection of my own on the similarities and differences that both Nature and some less Natural forces impose upon the respective racial perspectives of White and Black in the west today.
You see, although this author’s perspective is no less valid than mine, one thing he fails to do is consider mine: and when you consider only your own perspective you lose knowledge about the world. To this author then I wish to say: here is the White perspective. If you are as open minded as you present yourself as being, you will genuinely and sincerely accept and embrace this perspective as valid and worthy and needful of consideration in the national discourse.
Diversity under Scrutiny:
The Black author being considered here reflects on his experience walking in New Orleans, newly from Jamaica:
Within days I noticed that many people on the street seemed apprehensive of me: Some gave me a circumspect glance as they approached, and then crossed the street; others, ahead, would glance behind, register my presence, and then speed up; older white women clutched their bags; young white men nervously greeted me, as if exchanging a salutation for their safety: “What’s up, bro?”. . .I wasn’t prepared for any of this. I had come from a majority-black country in which no one was wary of me because of my skin color. Now I wasn’t sure who was afraid of me.
Anti-White equalitarians continually claim two things in addition to their claim that White people are to blame for everything: (1) that race is not real, and does not therefore, and should not therefore, impact social interactions, and (2) that the way to “fix” any “problem” with it doing so in society, is to increase racial diversity in an area.
The fact of the matter is, that there could hardly be a mindset farther from reality than equalitarianism. Everything we actually know scientifically (rather than what equalitarians stubbornly insist upon blindly believing in denial of the evidence) tells us that race is real, and that it causes real differences between people. The races are their own life-forms, and like all populations of such biologically distinct organisms, they are instinctively hardwired to recognize, embrace, and behave on the basis of that distinction.
For this reason there is a Natural, instinctive aloof coolness, even suspicion and distrust, which will—by Nature—permeate all cross-racial interactions. It is important that organisms socialize, bond with, and experience life within their own racial community, and just one of the mechanisms Nature has built into our wiring to facilitate this, is the innate low-level suspicion—perhaps more accurately, the lack of trust and social interest—that accompanies a racial difference. Trust is neither automatic nor necessarily easy to win in a cross-racial interaction—and it must always be earned. This is true no matter what racial line you are trying to cross. Over the years, I have seen many stories of wildlife filmmakers and researchers as they worked to cross the racial line of distrust to win the trust of a wild creature. The trust that White filmmaker John Varty built up with a Leopardess, Manana, took years and even one bad experience could have ruined it all. She did not automatically trust him; he was different; he wasn’t a leopard, and thus he wasn’t her racial kind.
It is that same innate distrust that I get with racial others, even with Asians (even though I can’t recall ever being afraid of Asians, since they simply aren’t violent as a general rule). My eyes, my senses, tell me they are different from me, and by instinct I know that means I can never know them, never want to know them, like I would another White person. And by that too, I know that I can never predict them as well. What I am talking about here is not fear. It is just not trust. There is a difference.
And this is certainly a positive thing—this innate social and psychological distance from those who are not your own kind. It is a Natural thing, and thus is a positive and healthy thing. It was supposed to be this way. A social interaction of this sort should never be offensive to anyone. All should instead understand that it is normal and healthy, and know that it is the result of no ill-will towards them, either personally, or as a race, but rather the result of the noble preference for one’s own in every way.
However, melanosupremacy via equalitarianism insists upon taking offense—but only when they find this Natural behavior in White people. It is left uncondemned, or even lauded, in non-Whites. But those who—contrary to right thinking—insist upon taking offense, would do well to consider that all of this means that increasing diversity will never make this phenomena go away—it will only make it more frequent as cross-racial contact becomes more frequent. The way therefore, to minimize such interactions characterized by this innate distrust, is to minimize cross-racial contact. In other words, to separate.
From the essay again:
I was astonished at how safe the streets felt to me [back in Jamaica after being in New Orleans], once again one black body among many, no longer having to anticipate the many ways my presence might instill fear and how to offer some reassuring body language. Passing police cars were once again merely passing police cars. Jamaican police could be pretty brutal, but they didn’t notice me the way American police did. I could be invisible in Jamaica in a way I can’t be invisible in the United States.
It is wonderful what separatism can do isn’t it? Hence the fact that he didn’t experience this in Jamaica: most were Black there, so he could “blend in” there. They were like him—at least in this most importance aspect of race—and thus his interactions were different. What he is describing here, to some degree, is merely the difference—the innate Natural difference—between same-race, and cross-race, interactions.
Equalitarians, in their refusal to recognize this simple—and really exceptionally beautiful—fact of reality, become melanosupremacists when they grasp around for an explanation other than Nature, and decide to Blame White people instead. They would call this author’s observation that White people don’t treat other White people with the same level of suspicion in society a part of “White privilege” and condemn it as “wicked White behavior”, but if this is privilege, than it is the same privilege that this Black author possesses over Whites whenever he goes back to his native Jamaica, and indeed, whenever he interacts with other Blacks. His astute observation that in Jamaica, he interacts almost exclusively with other Blacks, and therefore does not face the same level of distrust from a large number of the strangers he meets on the street (or the police for that matter, since most all of them are Black in Jamaica also), reflects nothing more than the convergence of this Natural racial psychology and population numbers. Any racial minority will be “underprivileged” in this way; any racial majority “privileged.” Rather than (falsely I think) call this “privilege”, and certainly rather than condemning it, we should all simply realize and accept that this is part of the tension that is inevitably created when racial diversity is present. To lessen this tension, lessen racial diversity.
Just as this Black author notes that he feels “safer” with his own kind, and in a Black-majority environment, so do the White people he complains of “suspecting” him on the streets of New Orleans and New York city, feel safer with their own kind, and in White majority environments. And there is nothing at all wrong with that. In fact, it is only Natural, healthy, and right.
Being at Increased Risk of Violence is not a “Privilege”:
But there is something else to this too. Instinctive distrust does not explain the degree of White (and often Asian and other non-Black race’s) distrust of Blacks. Instinctive distrust is different than fear. It is not fear. It is merely a lack of trust. Nature has no purpose in instilling positive fear in such a situation, only in instilling a strong distaste for social interaction, and a strong sense of caution and vigilance in cross-racial contact. But it cannot be denied that in cross-racial contact in majority White or Asian countries, Blacks in particular are often feared.
Once again, this fear—especially when Whites are the fearful ones—is labeled “racist” and treated as pathological White behavior by melanosupremacists. The fact that Whites do not fear other Whites (or Asians) like this is deemed part of “White privilege”. But only a true hatred of White people could so label it. White fear of Blacks is rooted in legitimate danger. While it is a mere inconvenience for an innocent Black to see White strangers cross the street to avoid him, or to hear them lock their car doors as he approaches, melanocentrism prevents melanosupremacists from seeing that what might result to the White strangers involved if he were the “wrong type” of Black person, is a great deal worse than a mere inconvenience: violence visited upon White bodies for being in “Black” areas is not uncommon, and death is all too frequently the result.
The Black crime rate alone—staggeringly higher than that of any other race—is enough to make fear of Black strangers rational and justified. But as ever, the White perspective here is being ignored. A White person increase his odds of being the victim of violent—not infrequently hate-fueled—crime substantially when he comes into contact with a young Black male (or even female). To act as if taking precautions to make certain that this outcome does not result, is “wrong” for White people is to say that White people don’t have the right to defend their lives and bodies from racial violence. And to say that is, to hate White people. The consequences for a young Black of these safety precautions are a mere inconvenience, the consequences to the White person involved if he does not take them, may be the physical bodily harm, or even a horrendous death. White people have every right—and indeed are doing right—to put their safety above a Black’s hurt feelings. And any Black with a sense of justice would say the exact same thing.
It is not “privilege” to have to worry about being attacked or murdered when you are around Blacks; it is the Blacks—who don’t have to worry so much about violence when they are around Whites—who are the privileged one’s when Blacks and Whites come into contact. To act as if anything else is the truth, is nothing but melanosupremacy.
The Psychology of Social Interaction and the White Perspective:
Our Black author goes on to note how constantly thinking about how not to look like a threat effects the way he thinks when in public, and his life in society at large:
In this city of exuberant streets, walking became a complex and often oppressive negotiation. I would see a white woman walking towards me at night and cross the street to reassure her that she was safe. I would forget something at home but not immediately turn around if someone was behind me, because I discovered that a sudden backtrack could cause alarm. (I had a cardinal rule: Keep a wide perimeter from people who might consider me a danger. If not, danger might visit me.) New Orleans suddenly felt more dangerous than Jamaica. The sidewalk was a minefield, and every hesitation and self-censored compensation reduced my dignity. Despite my best efforts, the streets never felt comfortably safe. Even a simple salutation was suspect.
It is of particular interest how he describes the “oppressive negotiation” of constantly having to worry about what the other person was thinking, and how interacting with the Whites seemed like a “minefield.” He would do well to consider the White perspective:
The ideology of melanosupremacy and equalitarianism, which blames and shames Whites for everything, has created an environment where any interaction with a non-White becomes an “oppressive negotiation” and a “minefield” where anything and everything that the White says may construed as “racist.” And, just like the Black suspect in police custody, the White person forced to interact with the non-White person anywhere knows that his safety, and his very life are on the line if he is perceived as “racist.” The slightest perceived affront by a non-White person may lead to a vicious attack on an innocent, and certainly innocently intentioned, White person. Navigating interactions with non-Whites becomes even more stressful than Nature has already made it, and even more dangerous.
EVERY White person knows that being perceived as “racist” could ruin his life, perhaps even take his life. And he knows too, that “racism” is in the eye of the non-White beholder, and that he can never really predict when some innocent thing he says or does will provoke a violent reaction. Our author continues:
Walking as a black man has made me feel simultaneously more removed from the city, in my awareness that I am perceived as suspect, and more closely connected to it, in the full attentiveness demanded by my vigilance.
If there was ever a race of people perceived from the moment they wake in the morning, till the moment they go to bed at night, as “suspect” it would be Whites. White people are branded and stigmatized as “racist” all the time, and those relatively objective indicators of cultural innocence—the lack of a criminal record, the physical evidence, the Constitutional protections—which can aid the exoneration of an innocent Black charged with being a criminal, are not available to White people charged with the subjective, social crime of “racism.” This has far too often led to a vicious cycle in which White people are looked upon by non-Whites as: White = guilty = dead.
In such an environment, not being perceived as “racist” suddenly demands “full attentiveness” of a White person’s “vigilance.” There is no privilege here.
And unlike the logical and justified fear of Blacks, this blaming and hating of Whites is completely unjustified, and without parallel. While White fear of Blacks is a reaction to the very real danger of being around Blacks, Black hatred of Whites is due to an ideology which makes them unwilling to take responsibility for themselves, and instead, seeks to cast it all onto the shoulders of White people, whom they then hate for bearing this burden. It is unjustified, irrational, and wrong. If Blacks wish to complain of irrational White fear of them, they need to stop making fear of them so rational.
The White perspective is one of oppression denied, hatred denied, degraded racial and personal identity, powerlessness, voicelessness, victimization justified by society; it is one of oppression that is accepted as normal—even moral—and of life lived in a world that glories in White suffering and anguish.
The very suggestion that White privilege exists must come from a privileged perspective—because any White person who has lived as a White person, knows where the real privilege lies.