Skip to main content

Why is he so angry?

Guest post by Erin

This is the question family and friends ask me with regards to John: "Why is he so angry lately?" Real talk: I have been known to ask this question myself.  The truth of the matter is that he's not an angry person; like the rest of us he is sometimes unhappy, discouraged and or deeply saddened by current events in the world around him.  In his world, as a Black man, he is too often confronted with the systematic devaluing of Black lives, particularly by law enforcement and the underrepresentation of people of color in his field of study.  But what well-meaning white folks are sensing as anger is really something else.

To answer the question of "Why is John so angry?" I'm compelled to ask "Why do you assume he is angry?" A number of people have told me it has to do with his use of the term "white people" when addressing...white people. It's understandable that this rubs us white folks the wrong way for a few reasons.  First, we're socialized to avoid conflict; we learn by actions of those around us, whether in school, in the workplace, etc. that anyone who challenges the status quo must be some sort of radical. I'm pretty sure that if there were an honorary degree offered for expertise in conflict avoidance, I'd hold one! Second - there's a common misconception that when a Black man or woman speaks up for his/her rights, or draws the less desirable aspects of our society into the public eye, that they are angry. But attributing anger to speaking out is a white move. It's well known that white people too often interpret anger when Black people speak up, move with confidence in white spaces, or even have facial expressions that aren't happy (Hugenberg & Bodenhousen 2003).

Choosing to use the words "white people" to refer to the dominant & ruling class in our society is no different than referring to black people as a monolithic group, as often happens in election years, for example. But the political correctness and "colorblindness" that our generation learned in the 1980s and 1990s taught us that it's not socially acceptable, and often downright racist, to say "black people" or "black x".  So today, most white people know better than to say "black people are/do/want x" for fear of being called a racist.  We seem to fear that happening so much that we further suppress desires to speak out against injustices we witness. What's replaced it are ways to refer to black people that are deemed to be politically correct or acceptable--- e.g. underrepresented minorities, underserved communities, URM, diversity hires etc.  But it's important to note that when we use these terms it's often done from a place of paternalism or with notions of the white-savior complex.  I am learning to appreciate the back and forth of discourse, but it's an ongoing challenge for a peace-keeper like myself.  I find what Teja Cole wrote in 2012 to be especially poignant:
But there's a place in the political sphere for direct speech and, in the past few years in the U.S., there has been a chilling effect on a certain kind of direct speech pertaining to rights. The president is wary of being seen as the "angry black man." People of color, women, and gays -- who now have greater access to the centers of influence that ever before -- are under pressure to be well-behaved when talking about their struggles. There is an expectation that we can talk about sins but no one must be identified as a sinner: newspapers love to describe words or deeds as "racially charged" even in those cases when it would be more honest to say "racist"; we agree that there is rampant misogyny, but misogynists are nowhere to be found; homophobia is a problem but no one is homophobic. One cumulative effect of this policed language is that when someone dares to point out something as obvious as white privilege, it is seen as unduly provocative. Marginalized voices in America have fewer and fewer avenues to speak plainly about what they suffer; the effect of this enforced civility is that those voices are falsified or blocked entirely from the discourse.
Today, John has a platform and some influence within his professional community.   But many of us white people question his desire to talk about his struggles.  We'll allow him to talk about his personal struggles with us, his predominately white academic community, but don't want anyone to be "identified as a sinner" or one who has benefited from the privileges that come with being white in the USA.  We listen with shared frustration as he shares stories of colleagues using the "existence proof" as a reason for the lack of diversity among students/faculty of color.  But we'll only tolerate it until it begins to make us uncomfortable, or compels us to speak up (read: take what we perceive to be a risk) in a professional setting.

For me it's tremendously challenging but even more rewarding to stop myself from asking "Why is (s)he so angry?" and instead ask "Why am I so unemotional/disconnected from the very real pain others are experiencing?"


Popular posts from this blog

On the Height of J.J. Barea

Dallas Mavericks point guard J.J. Barea standing between two very tall people (from: Picassa user photoasisphoto).

Congrats to the Dallas Mavericks, who beat the Miami Heat tonight in game six to win the NBA championship.

Okay, with that out of the way, just how tall is the busy-footed Maverick point guard J.J. Barea? He's listed as 6-foot on, but no one, not even the sports casters, believes that he can possibly be that tall. He looks like a super-fast Hobbit out there. But could that just be relative scaling, with him standing next to a bunch of extremely tall people? People on Yahoo! Answers think so---I know because I've been Google searching "J.J. Barea Height" for the past 15 minutes.

So I decided to find a photo and settle the issue once and for all.

I started by downloading a stock photo of J.J. from, which I then loaded into OpenOffice Draw:

I then used the basketball as my metric. Wikipedia states that an NBA basketball is 29.5 inches in circumfe…

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight

ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims.
I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to do was p…

The GRE: A test that fails

Every Fall seniors in the US take the Graduate Records Examination (GRE), and their scores are submitted along with their applications to grad school. Many professors, particularly those in physics departments, believe that the GRE is an important predictor of future success in grad school, and as a result many admissions committees employ score cutoffs in the early stages of their selection process. However, past and recent studies have shown that there is little correlation between GRE scores and future graduate school success.
The most recent study of this type was recently published in Nature Jobs. The authors, Casey Miller and Keivan Stassun show there are strong correlations between GRE scores and race/gender, with minorities and (US) white women scoring lower than their white male (US) counterparts. They conclude, "In simple terms, the GRE is a better indicator of sex and skin colour than of ability and ultimate success."
Here's the key figure from their article: