I think it is well past time to call a halt to the growing tendency of many on the Left of comfortably using racist language in singlng out white males as primarily responsible for social injustice. Such discriminatory language is morally indefensible, theoretically unjustified, and politically counter productive. 

It is morally indefensible because it gives expression to a classic form of prejudicial stereotyping, no different in substance from antisemitism, islamophobia, and the many numerous forms of ethnic and cultural denigration. Some have justified it by claiming that the target of their attack are people with power, and not the marginalized or oppressed. But that does not obviate its prejudicial character in indiscriminatingly demonizing an entire class of people. Nor is it factually or historically correct. 

For one thing, the ruling powers tend to be narrowly circumscribed in most countries — perhaps not much more than the proverbially one percent — thus most white males are certainly not among that elite group. Many, in fact, are in quite desperate straights, for example, being unable to hold their families together, perhaps suffering from opioid or other forms of addition. At the same time, many such “white males” have actually played a leading role in fighting for social, economic, and racial justice. 

Further, the prejudicial attacks fail to distinguish the issue of race from that of patriarchy. Patriarchy is a pervasive, near universal phenomenon in the human species. It exists – if I may use such charged, and inappropriate, language of color – among yellow Chinese, dark skinned Indians of Asia and Latinos of Central and South America, red skinned Amerindians or Native Americans, black North Americans and Africans, as well as among white Europeans and North Americans. There is a reason why most English-speaking people know the meaning of “macho”, for example, or why foot binding existed for so long in China, and why so many women in Moslem countries wear hijabs to hide all but their eyes to the outside world. There are many reasons for the pervasiveness of patriarchy – biological, historical, cultural and religious – and good reasons to work to oppose it. But it is not a phenomenon limited to one race, ethnicity, or national group. And certainly not a problem co-extensive with all and only white males.

Finally, such racial denigration is politically counter productive because it tends to alienate a large percentage of the voting population. In very few places are “black and brown people” such  an overwhelming majority that they can politically discount white voters. Certainly, they are not such for most of Long Island, and across New York State, even as their numbers and impact are growing. For the present and for the foreseeable future, for progressive policies to be enacted significant support will be required from more than just black and brown communities. And using such racist language can only succeed in alienating significant portions of “white”  society.

But beyond all of that, a progressive program ought to envision a humanely inclusive future, with an appropriately decent respect for people of all races, religions, creeds, genders, and ethnicities. And it should conscientiously avoid the prejudicial stereotyping and systematic denigration of any population. Rather it ought to single out for criticism precisely those individuals and groups that effectively oppose that vision and that work to impede the implementation of programs that contribute to its progressive realization.