Which groups make up white oppressors?

Daily Lobo column

It was with great interest that I read Laura Valdez’ penetrating (as usual) column on white oppression in the March 29 Daily Lobo. While I am intelligent enough to understand her points, that I am white apparently prevents me from perceiving all the subtleties of racist oppression, and I am unclear on a few points.

What constitutes a “white oppressor” is clear enough, but Valdez has not bothered to make the fine distinctions, presumably because they are intuitively obvious to a colonized person like herself.

Not all whites in the power structure are directly involved in the hiring or supervision of persons of color, so we must distinguish between “active” and “passive” white oppressors; Valdez’ boss, Dean of Students Randy Boeglin, might be considered a passive white oppressor, since he presumably does not colonize her on a daily basis.

Now, normally we would only be talking about heterosexual males, but since there are some female and homosexual whites in positions of power, we must admit the existence of white oppressors who themselves are oppressed. Thus, vice President for Institutional Advancement Judy Jones would be considered an “oppressed white oppressor.” And remember George Wallace? There are also “disabled white oppressors,” but we know the disabled are themselves oppressed, so technically he would be an “oppressed disabled white oppressor.”

I am a bit unclear on “persons of color.” Specifically, are Spaniards persons of color or white? I would say white, since they are Europeans, but why then are Valdez and other Hispanics not opposing the statue of Onate, who would appear to fall into the category of white oppressor, especially if you happen to be a New Mexican Indian.

What about the Virgin and her Son? Are they white oppressors? I gather they are not, since Arabs are considered persons of color, and like them the Hebrews were west Semites, so despite traditional iconography, Mary and Jesus ought to be considered persons of color, though the latter’s ethnic background is somewhat unclear, since we don’t know what color God is.

But does this make all Jews, who trace a strict descent through the mother, people of color? Was Albert Einstein a person of color? And why do most Hispanics heed the pronouncements of John Paul II, a white oppressor?

But what I want to know the most is, are the Turks people of color? They look white, disparage the Arabs and Kurds — who are people of color — and for at least the last 80 years have considered themselves Europeans. Yet their roots are in central Asia, and they speak a language that is not Indo-European, whitie’s linguistic family. Would this not also make Finns and Hungarians people of color as well?

This is important to me because my ethnic roots lie in Croatia. Now, Croatians are manifestly white, though they have been unable to fulfill their historic destiny as white oppressors since they have spent most of their time killing Serbs and Albanians, more white people.

But for centuries Croatia lay just over the frontier from the Turkish Empire, and consequently there is almost surely some trace of Turkish blood to be found in my background. Thus, if the Turks are people of color, then I am, too, and I no longer need to carry all this white guilt around.

A final question: just how much blood of color does one require to be a person of color and thus ready to be colonized? Half? A quarter? A tenth? A millionth? Segregationists in the South used to make these distinctions. Were they actually progressives, way ahead of their time, when they cried, “Not one drop of Negro blood!”?

Well, I’m feeling an irresistible urge to colonize someone, so I must go. Incidentally, if you found Valdez’s article offensive, tough. The First Amendment protects not just speech you agree with, but that of airheads as well.