You saved the nugget for the end: "Even APA’s style guidance draws a clear line: ethnicity is about shared cultural characteristics such as language and ancestry, not some mythical biological ranking system."
I don't really carry the "pride of ethnicity" gene, so no shits given here. I had a boss once named O'Hare; on St. Paddy's Day he would put an 'O' in front of everybody's name and declare them Irish. Mr. O'Singh was quite tickled by this.
Per the definition above, I'm a Cracker. We're a defined group, derived from Hillbillies whereby we moved out of the Smokies and adapted to flat land. Crackers are good, kind, hard-working people with terrible P.R. Hillbillies are idiotic assholes. But I'm not bitter.
Thank you. I've been ruminating on this Vance comment made at the latest TP-USA "fest" because I've heard it before from my own family about 20 or so years ago.
Reading through, I had to stop to look up "colonizer core" which led me to the story of Paula Sutton, a British interior designer and social media maven who happens to be Black. A Twitter flap ensued when a white woman (apparently also in those same vocational fields) got huffy (triggered) and dare I say pea green with envy over a photo spread of Paula in front of her own gorgeous country home with its manicured gardens during the pandemic. As if a Black woman shouldn't have nice things. It was stunning really.
As maybe one of the whitest women on the planet, I've generally understood that the redresses from the civil rights era and DEI initiatives were/are structural methods to address systemic structural frameworks of racism and sexism. Redress that white women like myself have also (greatly) benefitted from.
That the ladder for us lower orders/rank of lifeforms, POC, women, LGBTQ, to rise, bypassing the old "by our leave" system exists at all has bred resentment in so many quarters that it shows me the ethical state of education, churches & legacy institutions dominated by whiteness (& maleness).
Vance with his grievance fueled persona & his elevation to power from semi-mediocrity is the portrait of institutional failure. That Vance was the person to openly feed more fuel into that abiding grievance furnace of being asked to share the planet and it's abundance with people that aren't white, male or invited into their club with his ridiculous speech is truly fitting.
Cathy — thank you for this. And I really appreciate how you connected the “Vance line” to hearing that same kind of framing in your own family years ago. That’s exactly why it works: it’s not new, it’s just been rebranded and given a microphone.
Also: I’m glad you paused on “colonizer core,” because your Paula Sutton example is such a clean illustration of what I’m talking about. The idea that a Black woman can’t simply have beauty, peace, elegance, and nice things without somebody getting agitated tells you the hierarchy is still living in people’s heads rent-free. That flare-up isn’t about décor — it’s about status. It’s the unspoken belief that certain spaces, certain softness, certain abundance are “supposed” to belong to certain people. So when someone outside the preferred category has it, the resentment spills out like a toddler tipping over a Christmas tree.
And I appreciate your clarity about redress. You’re exactly right: civil rights-era reforms and DEI efforts are not “special treatment.” They’re structural responses to structural exclusion — imperfect, sometimes clumsy, sometimes poorly implemented, but rooted in a basic idea: if the playing field was deliberately tilted for generations, you don’t “fix” it by pretending it was level the whole time. And you naming that white women have also benefited from those redresses is an important truth that gets lost when politics turns everything into a zero-sum food fight.
Your point about the “ladder” is the heart of it: a lot of resentment comes from the fact that people who were used to being automatically centered now feel like they have to share oxygen. They experience equality as theft because the old system trained them to see access as their property. And you’re right to connect that resentment to institutions — education, churches, legacy spaces — that have historically been dominated by whiteness (and maleness) and have often treated that dominance as “normal” rather than as a choice with consequences.
And yes: Vance as a grievance-fueled figure rising through those institutions is a portrait of institutional failure. He’s not inventing the furnace, but he’s absolutely throwing fresh logs on it — turning “share the country” into “you’re being attacked,” and turning “inclusion” into “humiliation.” That’s why his speech lands where it does: it’s pitched to people who resent the idea that the planet—and its abundance—was never meant to be “by your leave.”
Thank you again for reading so closely and for adding real texture and lived experience to the conversation. Comments like yours are exactly why I keep writing.
Amen! Kristoffer. I saw the article yesterday and knew I needed to give it a serious read. Why? just the serious photo of Vance's whiteness and the "line don't need to apologize for whiteness" made me sick--and I already was not feeling well. (Just a cold, but ugh!) Needed to read it in the cool light of dawn. So I waited and here goes. JD is truly a sick person. DARVO--Deny, Attack and Reverse Victim and Offenders--does explain it well. "Whiteness As Status". Erk!!! As I read the words of this old hymn, Evening Prayer by C. Maud Battersby (1911) floated through my head: "If I have wounded any soul today, If I have stepped one foot to go astray, If I have walked in my own willful way, Dear Lord forgive." It goes on for 3 more verses, and it covers it all--even the "secret sins we do not see". The things we seek forgiveness for...and in my life there has been many things and still are (I am sorry to say) things I need to say, "I am sorry for". But JD Vance is just too capricious for words---Again, what he said just makes me sick. This hierarchy of whiteness is ugly and stupid--but unfortunately, as you so eloquently pointed out, it is real in the minds of many who want to hold it as definition for power. Erk!
Thanks again for all you do, Kristoffer. Take care. 🙏😔
Maxine — thank you for this, truly. And I’m sorry you weren’t feeling well on top of reading that line from Vance — it’s one of those statements that can make your stomach drop because it’s so casually manipulative. 🙏🏾
You summed it up perfectly: the “you don’t have to apologize for being white” framing is DARVO in a tuxedo. It denies the underlying history and present-day inequities, attacks the very idea of equity/repair, and then flips the moral roles so the dominant group gets to perform victimhood. That’s why it hits the ear like a con — because it’s built to turn accountability into persecution.
I also really appreciate you bringing up Evening Prayer and the whole “if I have wounded any soul today…” posture. That’s what’s so jarring about Vance’s move: it’s not a call to reflection, humility, or moral responsibility — it’s the opposite. It’s a permission slip to never examine anything, to treat introspection as an insult, and to confuse “I feel uncomfortable” with “I’m being oppressed.” And you’re right: there are plenty of moments in life where all of us can say “I’m sorry” — not as self-flagellation, but as basic human decency — and he’s deliberately weaponizing the idea of apology so people won’t even consider what accountability might look like.
And yes: “whiteness as status” is ugly, but the uglier truth is exactly what you named — it’s real in the minds of people who want to hold it as a definition for power. That’s why it persists. Not because it’s biologically coherent, but because it’s socially profitable: it organizes who gets the benefit of the doubt, who gets protected, who gets heard, who gets presumed innocent, who gets presumed competent. That’s the “status” part.
Thank you again for reading closely and for sharing such a thoughtful response — and please take care of yourself. Hope you’re on the upswing soon. 🙏🏾🕯️🎄
It's an interesting experiment to look into the proverbial mirror and see the situation from Vance's pov. Imagine that he is the one who is apologizing for being white and he is tired of it. Consider this hypothetical conversation between a couple of good buds. Bud #1; I had to go to the school today and clean up a mess with my son and his interaction with a teacher. I suggested to the principal that the teacher was a (pick your derogatory description here) for speaking of my son like that. The principal stated that we don't talk like that in this school. Bud #2 replies; Oh, so you had to apologize for being white!? Laughter from both.
The feeling behind the phrase "apologize for being white" is not literal, it's figurative. I suggest it's an expression of a reaction by the right to progressive's attempting to continue on with the march to inclusion. Not everyone is on board with that and in this era those who disagree have found a new voice. They may react to that progression with something akin to "I am sick of it" and they use a type of gallows humor to cope.
The bigger question is: How does society as a whole learn what the rest of the herd will accept? Some instances have gathered broad acceptance over the eons, eg don't sleep with your cousin while some are still struggling for universal acceptance, eg. people of all colors are equal. How do we, each of us, learn what the truth is?
Peter — I appreciate the thoughtful tone here, and I get what you’re trying to do by stepping into Vance’s POV.
A few things, though:
1. “Apologize for being white” isn’t a literal demand — but it’s not harmless shorthand either.
I agree it’s often used figuratively. The problem is what it functionally does in politics: it reframes “don’t be racist / don’t defend racial hierarchy / don’t deny history” as “you’re being punished for existing.” That switch turns accountability into persecution, and it’s a very convenient way to shut down any serious conversation about what actually happened (and what still echoes forward).
2. Your school anecdote kind of proves the opposite point.
In the example, the principal says “we don’t talk like that in this school.” That’s not an “apology for being white.” That’s a boundary around derogatory speech. If a person hears “don’t use slurs/derogatory labels” and translates it into “I’m being targeted for being white,” that’s not inclusion run amok — that’s someone refusing to separate identity from behavior. Nobody is saying “you’re bad because you’re white.” They’re saying “don’t be an asshole to other people.” Those aren’t the same thing.
3. Gallows humor is real — but it’s also a shield.
Sure, groups joke to cope. But in this context, the “joke” often protects a deeper message: “Stop asking us to change.” It’s humor deployed as insulation: if you push back, you’re “too sensitive,” and if you don’t, the framing becomes normal. That’s why this line keeps showing up — it’s a political multi-tool.
4. “What will the herd accept?” isn’t the same as “what is true?”
I’m with you on the bigger question, but I’d tighten it: societies often accept things that are wrong for a long time, and they reject things that are right until pressure makes them undeniable. “People of all colors are equal” isn’t a popularity contest statement — it’s a moral claim backed by democratic ideals and equal protection norms. The “herd” has been wrong before, loudly and confidently.
5. So how do we learn what the truth is?
By separating a few things we tend to mash together:
• Identity vs. behavior: you can be white and still oppose racial hierarchy; you can be proud of ancestry without defending “whiteness” as rank.
• Discomfort vs. harm: discomfort at being challenged isn’t the same as being oppressed.
• Inclusion vs. erasure: inclusion doesn’t require pretending history didn’t happen; it requires we stop repeating it.
That’s why I’m hard on Vance’s line. Even if some people mean it figuratively, in practice it trains people to treat basic decency and historical honesty as a personal attack — and that’s a political dead end.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. “we don’t talk like that in this school.” is received by MAGA as an insult, ie don't tell me how to talk or what to say. MAGA to MAGA the response is "they" are trying to make you apologize for being white. They use jokes to obtain approval from the rest of the crowd, to make it seem more acceptable. If everyone is laughing and smiling what could be wrong.
To the MAGA mind they are being attacked for what they are and they don't care to be hen pecked anymore. The administration makes it acceptable to talk back!
I learned societies expectations from my parents, siblings, schools, and later coworkers through the same mechanisms. I suggest the MAGA crowd does not want to be a member of my society anymore, they have a different social structure, and they cherish the support they receive from this administration.
Wonderful. One suggestion about the mingling of color, class, and status.
Redlining is real, no matter how many people have changed their house title in an attempt to erase it. But by the very name we all 'know' that practice was 'wrong'. IE, source of inequality. But the emotive marker is discomforting. "Geez, my family got ahead, and that maybe wasn't fair, but we didn't ask....."
Let's try a different story. What made the American middle class and the prosperity of inter-generational wealth? The GI Bill. Who, among White students doesn't have a flash of pride that Grandpa came back from WW2 and got an education and a mortgage. See, hard work. We were poor, but worked hard!
Start the conversation there, and then mention 'qualifications'. How about every family with a Veteran that did not access the GI Bill after WW2 gets one shot for everyone in a generation to access those benefits? Students drop the resistance to discussions on reparations because emotively they SEE it.
Abigail — this is such a smart framing, and I appreciate you taking the time to write it out this clearly.
You’re dead right that redlining is real regardless of how many people try to launder the paper trail after the fact. And you’re also right about the emotional reflex you’re naming: a lot of folks intellectually know it was wrong, but what they feel is discomfort — that “my family benefited and we didn’t personally author the policy, so why does this feel like it’s about me?” That’s exactly where the conversation gets jammed up: not on facts, but on identity-protection and the fear of being assigned personal guilt for structural history.
And I love your pivot to a different entry point: the GI Bill as a story about how the American middle class and intergenerational wealth got built. Because that’s the part people understand instinctively: “Grandpa came home, got a shot at education, got a mortgage, we worked hard, we climbed.” Exactly. That narrative is America’s favorite bedtime story.
But then you add the crucial word: qualifications — and what those “qualifications” looked like in practice when access wasn’t evenly distributed. The point isn’t to erase the hard work; it’s to be honest about the structure that decided who got to convert service and labor into assets and who got blocked, delayed, or shut out. That’s where color, class, and status braid together, because the rules weren’t just written on paper — they were enforced through institutions that treated different groups differently.
And your “one shot per generation” idea is a powerful way to make people see what “repair” can mean without turning it into a guilt ritual. It reframes the conversation from apology theater to policy logic: if a society used government programs and housing policy to accelerate wealth-building for some and restrict it for others, then fairness isn’t just saying “wow, that was unfortunate.” Fairness is asking what it would look like to equalize opportunity in a way that’s legible, concrete, and measurable.
That’s the core point I keep trying to make: nobody’s asking people to grovel for being born into a category. What people want is an honest accounting of how the ladder was built — and who was allowed to climb it — so we can stop pretending unequal outcomes are just a personality test.
Really appreciate this, Abigail. This is exactly the kind of framing that gets people past defensiveness and into understanding.
Took me a while to frame this sensitively to Midwest private college kids. Blew their defenses away in a non-accusatory way. I push it to everyone I can. Thanks for listening.
Down south we call people like eyeliner vance, white trash. I would like an honest apology from his hateful, racist, criminal, murderous, white nationalist self. Maybe he’ll choke on his microphone…
This is the second Substack I've read today that has made me really stop and think, and need to process. I'm also currently reading "Dying of Whiteness." So many things to make me process.....but it's better than focusing on Venezuela, so for that I thank you.
Pamela — thank you for that. I’m really glad it made you pause and process (that’s honestly the best compliment I can get as a writer).
And yes — Dying of Whiteness is a perfect companion to this whole conversation, because it shows how grievance politics isn’t just ugly… it’s self-destructive, even for the people being sold the lie.
Also: I feel you on the Venezuela-news fatigue. Sometimes the healthiest thing we can do is step back from the “breaking news hamster wheel” and zoom out to the deeper framework underneath it all. I appreciate you reading, and I appreciate you taking the time to sit with it.
Vance simply expressed a belief that's widespread in the administration. Its clearest expression that I know is in last year's executive order, "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History."
This is the document that first introduced the public to Lindsey Halligan, now well known for, well, other things. She may have written the order, although it sounds like Stephen Miller's work. Whoever penned it is a Rip van Winkle who woke up and thought it was spring, 1925.
The order brings up an exhibition that was at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. The order accuses the show of "[promoting] the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct, stating, 'Race is a human invention.'" As I said, Rip van Winkle.
The mind boggles; Stephen Jay Gould is rolling in his grave.
I'm all for Truth And Sanity(TM). Let's get us some of that.
The sticky wicket, though, is which exact *time slice* you choose to use as the datum for your base-line T&S.
East Asians began picking up major economic steam over the last century, becoming 'white' in the process (citation needed, I've read this in a few places). South Asians ('Indians') are on their way. Becoming shocked SHOCKED by the bigotry in his midst, Vivek Ramaswami recently declared he's not having it. No sir.
Whiteitude is not the only social marker that has stupid levels of permeability. My brother in law is a Palestinian Jordanian. Muslim all his life. Prays towards Mecca three times a day. Because he's an intelligent, thoughtful and kind individual, he is widely adored by his neighbors in Texas. They struggle to describe him and just blurt out that he's a "good Christian man" to keep their tiny heads from imploding.
Wesowolf — thank you for bringing receipts instead of vibes. That executive order makes the quiet part loud: Vance’s “no need to apologize for being white” routine isn’t a one-off crowd-pleaser, it’s the public-facing slogan for an actual governing project that treats basic historical literacy like contraband. 
And the irony is almost performance art: the order explicitly takes a swing at the Smithsonian exhibit for saying race isn’t a biological reality but a social construct (“Race is a human invention”)—as if acknowledging what modern scholarship has argued for decades is “indoctrination.”  In other words, the administration is mad that a museum said out loud the thing you learn the minute you stop treating 18th-century pseudoscience like a personality trait.
Also: you’re not imagining the “Stephen Miller energy.” The order literally names Lindsey Halligan as a senior staffer involved in implementing it (in consultation with the Vice President), which tells you this isn’t just rhetorical cosplay—it’s operational. 
“Restoring Truth and Sanity” is an Orwell title for a document that complains the problem is historians pointing out how power and hierarchy were built. Rip van Winkle didn’t wake up in 1925 — somebody’s trying to drag us there on purpose. 
Kathy — exactly. That’s the whole play: Deny the history, attack the people pointing to it, then reverse the roles so the folks with power get to cosplay as the victims. It’s DARVO with a campaign logo slapped on it — and yes, complete garbage.
Well, professor, you did it again. Thank you, including for the perfect description - “grievance-industrial complex” that is at the rotted root of MAGA - for another excellent essay.
I was born in 1955 and grew up during the Civil Rights and Women’s Rights movements. I had an older brother, four years older, who was happy to tote his kid sister along so many of my experiences were aligned with his. It mattered to him that I was properly educated (in his eyes) so he took me to the trial of Black Panthers Erika Huggins and Bobby Seale, and later into NYC to learn about the Sweat Equity housing program he worked on. I’ve always valued the ideals I grew up with, imagining an America that would be better for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.
We grew up in an affluent community in Westchester County, NY. I am aware of my white privilege and the access I had for being white, though I never felt the need to apologize for that.
Women remain lower in the white hierarchy (as do all women regardless of race or ethnicity) - Americans voted for a Black man before a white woman, and a racist felon over a Black woman. Yes, we’ve come a long way, as the saying goes, but as Nancy Pelosi recently said, that ceiling isn’t glass, it’s marble.
Vance, whether or not a racist, has to play a racist to belong in the cult, and his aspirations far outweigh his values. The cancellations of DEI programs is another ridiculous play at encouraging the racists to feel better about themselves and their racism (and misogyny).
America is in a very bad place. The American ideals instilled in me as a young person growing up in the 60s are gone. I’ve long said our species needs to be vanquished so a new, more-evolved species can take over while earth is still habitable.
Lynn — thank you for this. And thank you for seeing exactly what I was aiming at with “grievance-industrial complex.” That’s the engine: monetize resentment, sell it as identity, and then call everyone else divisive for pointing out the scam.
Your story about growing up in the Civil Rights/Women’s Rights era — and especially your brother taking you to the Erika Huggins/Bobby Seale trial and then exposing you to the sweat-equity housing work — is the kind of formative political education people don’t forget. That’s not “politics as fandom.” That’s politics as systems, power, and consequences. And it tracks with what you said next: valuing an America that’s better for everyone, regardless of race/ethnicity/gender. That’s the whole point of the project.
I also appreciate how you framed privilege: being aware of the access you had because you were white, without turning it into some performative “apology ritual.” That’s the exact distinction Vance tries to blur on purpose. Acknowledgment isn’t self-flagellation. It’s just… honesty. And honesty is what grievance politics can’t survive.
And you’re right about women sitting lower in the hierarchy — even within whiteness. We really did watch this country elect a Black man before it elected a white woman, and then (even more grotesquely) choose a racist felon over a Black woman. That’s why the Pelosi line hits: that ceiling isn’t glass — it’s marble. Heavy. Structural. Built to last unless people break it.
Your read on Vance is dead on too: whether he’s personally racist in his heart-of-hearts is almost beside the point. He’s playing the role because the MAGA coalition requires it. His ambition outweighs his values, so he performs the script — and the DEI cancellations are part of that same performance. They’re not “neutral policy.” They’re a signal to the worst people in the room that the shame is gone and the boundaries are off — racism and misogyny get to feel respectable again.
Now — on your last point: I hear the exhaustion and disgust behind it. But I can’t ride with “our species needs to be vanquished.” I get the impulse (because gestures broadly at everything), but I’m not giving up the idea that humans can get better — and I’m not giving the cruel people the satisfaction of thinking they’re the final chapter. The move, to me, is the opposite: stay human on purpose, stay engaged on purpose, and keep building coalitions that make the grift politically expensive.
Thank you again, Lynn. Your comment is a reminder that a better America isn’t a naïve fantasy — it’s something people have fought for before, and it’s still worth fighting for now.
I think one reason I enjoy our conversation on your Substack so much is because you remind me a bit of the young men my brother would bring home from college on the weekends to engage in debates with my conservative parents. It definitely was an experience for 14-year-old me watching my dad get his ass kicked (metaphorically) by my brother and his peers.
Regarding vanquishing our species - not so much because of how we treat each other, which at times is awful, but because of our disregard for our earth. She’s all we’ve got and I fear she may not survive us.
Questions ask why the US is involved in Venezuela? Cheeto ran a campaign counter to such an invasion of countries but of course he lied about so many promises since he wanted to stay out of jail
Despite the fact that Venezuela has the world's largest proven oil reserves the type of oil that the country brings out of the ground is a dirty petroleum product because it requires many many steps to get a marketable product Venezuelan oil accounts for only 1% of the overall global oil production
So if it’s not about a valuable oil product, then is the US military Venezuelan capture of an awful tyrant like Maduro the real reason for this US military action? Maybe but corruption, power, and money always are the motivating factors for Cheeto who desires to be tough guy strongman who can become the bully of countries in the Western hemisphere It sets the tone to all other Western hemisphere countries
In the end there are many reasons Emperor Cheeto decided to arrest a fellow dictator He’s an impulsive malignant narcissist with loyalists willing to do his bidding and oil which is a gift to the American oil industry and its campaign donors is another piece of this bizarro puzzle Then there’s the Nobel Peace Prize Venezuelan activist who Cheeto flipped off when she offered the US help Polling numbers suck and health insurance costs are going up for millions And the action does serve as a great distraction from the haunting Epstein files and the news networks are swallowing the bait
Mary — “Shady JD” really is out here selling a hierarchy that, if you take it seriously, turns his own household into a walking contradiction.
I won’t pretend I know what he believes about his family personally, but I will say this: when you traffic in “white grievance” politics and wink at “white pride” logic, you’re feeding an ideology that does treat interracial families like a problem to be explained away. And that’s why the whole act is so clownish — he wants the political benefits of the dog whistle without owning the ugly purity rules the dog whistle was built for.
I think, that in addition to being a dyed-in-the-wool racist, Shady is blowing the dog whistle because he is convinced it is to his political advantage to do so. He knows his boss Agolf Shitler is on short time so Shady is desperate to hold onto to the MAGA moron (but I repeat myself) base. He knows he isn't the MAGAT Cult's fair-haired boy so he is desperate to win them over. Thus, the dog whistles. Shady is an opportunist of the worst sort.
My mother's dad was Italian. Couldn't get certain jobs, because Italians weren't white yet. He had to elope with her mom, because her parents didn't approve. Ironically, she was part Irish, but the Irish had become white by then.
Earl — this is exactly the point, and thank you for putting real family history on it.
Your story captures how “white” in America has never been a stable identity—it’s been a moving membership card. Italians being treated as “not quite white” (and locked out of certain jobs/social acceptance), then later being folded into whiteness, is the whole “rank” dynamic in action. Same with the Irish: once upon a time they were racialized as outsiders, then over time they got admitted into the category as the boundaries of “white” expanded when it became politically useful.
And the elopement detail matters, too, because it shows this wasn’t abstract theory—this was real social policing of who counted, who belonged, who was “acceptable.”
So yeah: when you say “race is bullshit,” I read that as race as a biological fact is bullshit—but race as a social system unfortunately has been very real in people’s lives. Which is why Vance’s grievance line is so ridiculous: he’s treating whiteness like some innocent heritage under attack, when the history is that whiteness has functioned like a gate-kept status—and the gate has moved whenever it needed to.
Love this article! J.D. Vance is embarrassing!!
Well, just damn. Mic drop, Professor. Bravo.
You saved the nugget for the end: "Even APA’s style guidance draws a clear line: ethnicity is about shared cultural characteristics such as language and ancestry, not some mythical biological ranking system."
I don't really carry the "pride of ethnicity" gene, so no shits given here. I had a boss once named O'Hare; on St. Paddy's Day he would put an 'O' in front of everybody's name and declare them Irish. Mr. O'Singh was quite tickled by this.
Per the definition above, I'm a Cracker. We're a defined group, derived from Hillbillies whereby we moved out of the Smokies and adapted to flat land. Crackers are good, kind, hard-working people with terrible P.R. Hillbillies are idiotic assholes. But I'm not bitter.
Thank you. I've been ruminating on this Vance comment made at the latest TP-USA "fest" because I've heard it before from my own family about 20 or so years ago.
Reading through, I had to stop to look up "colonizer core" which led me to the story of Paula Sutton, a British interior designer and social media maven who happens to be Black. A Twitter flap ensued when a white woman (apparently also in those same vocational fields) got huffy (triggered) and dare I say pea green with envy over a photo spread of Paula in front of her own gorgeous country home with its manicured gardens during the pandemic. As if a Black woman shouldn't have nice things. It was stunning really.
As maybe one of the whitest women on the planet, I've generally understood that the redresses from the civil rights era and DEI initiatives were/are structural methods to address systemic structural frameworks of racism and sexism. Redress that white women like myself have also (greatly) benefitted from.
That the ladder for us lower orders/rank of lifeforms, POC, women, LGBTQ, to rise, bypassing the old "by our leave" system exists at all has bred resentment in so many quarters that it shows me the ethical state of education, churches & legacy institutions dominated by whiteness (& maleness).
Vance with his grievance fueled persona & his elevation to power from semi-mediocrity is the portrait of institutional failure. That Vance was the person to openly feed more fuel into that abiding grievance furnace of being asked to share the planet and it's abundance with people that aren't white, male or invited into their club with his ridiculous speech is truly fitting.
Cathy — thank you for this. And I really appreciate how you connected the “Vance line” to hearing that same kind of framing in your own family years ago. That’s exactly why it works: it’s not new, it’s just been rebranded and given a microphone.
Also: I’m glad you paused on “colonizer core,” because your Paula Sutton example is such a clean illustration of what I’m talking about. The idea that a Black woman can’t simply have beauty, peace, elegance, and nice things without somebody getting agitated tells you the hierarchy is still living in people’s heads rent-free. That flare-up isn’t about décor — it’s about status. It’s the unspoken belief that certain spaces, certain softness, certain abundance are “supposed” to belong to certain people. So when someone outside the preferred category has it, the resentment spills out like a toddler tipping over a Christmas tree.
And I appreciate your clarity about redress. You’re exactly right: civil rights-era reforms and DEI efforts are not “special treatment.” They’re structural responses to structural exclusion — imperfect, sometimes clumsy, sometimes poorly implemented, but rooted in a basic idea: if the playing field was deliberately tilted for generations, you don’t “fix” it by pretending it was level the whole time. And you naming that white women have also benefited from those redresses is an important truth that gets lost when politics turns everything into a zero-sum food fight.
Your point about the “ladder” is the heart of it: a lot of resentment comes from the fact that people who were used to being automatically centered now feel like they have to share oxygen. They experience equality as theft because the old system trained them to see access as their property. And you’re right to connect that resentment to institutions — education, churches, legacy spaces — that have historically been dominated by whiteness (and maleness) and have often treated that dominance as “normal” rather than as a choice with consequences.
And yes: Vance as a grievance-fueled figure rising through those institutions is a portrait of institutional failure. He’s not inventing the furnace, but he’s absolutely throwing fresh logs on it — turning “share the country” into “you’re being attacked,” and turning “inclusion” into “humiliation.” That’s why his speech lands where it does: it’s pitched to people who resent the idea that the planet—and its abundance—was never meant to be “by your leave.”
Thank you again for reading so closely and for adding real texture and lived experience to the conversation. Comments like yours are exactly why I keep writing.
Amen! Kristoffer. I saw the article yesterday and knew I needed to give it a serious read. Why? just the serious photo of Vance's whiteness and the "line don't need to apologize for whiteness" made me sick--and I already was not feeling well. (Just a cold, but ugh!) Needed to read it in the cool light of dawn. So I waited and here goes. JD is truly a sick person. DARVO--Deny, Attack and Reverse Victim and Offenders--does explain it well. "Whiteness As Status". Erk!!! As I read the words of this old hymn, Evening Prayer by C. Maud Battersby (1911) floated through my head: "If I have wounded any soul today, If I have stepped one foot to go astray, If I have walked in my own willful way, Dear Lord forgive." It goes on for 3 more verses, and it covers it all--even the "secret sins we do not see". The things we seek forgiveness for...and in my life there has been many things and still are (I am sorry to say) things I need to say, "I am sorry for". But JD Vance is just too capricious for words---Again, what he said just makes me sick. This hierarchy of whiteness is ugly and stupid--but unfortunately, as you so eloquently pointed out, it is real in the minds of many who want to hold it as definition for power. Erk!
Thanks again for all you do, Kristoffer. Take care. 🙏😔
Maxine — thank you for this, truly. And I’m sorry you weren’t feeling well on top of reading that line from Vance — it’s one of those statements that can make your stomach drop because it’s so casually manipulative. 🙏🏾
You summed it up perfectly: the “you don’t have to apologize for being white” framing is DARVO in a tuxedo. It denies the underlying history and present-day inequities, attacks the very idea of equity/repair, and then flips the moral roles so the dominant group gets to perform victimhood. That’s why it hits the ear like a con — because it’s built to turn accountability into persecution.
I also really appreciate you bringing up Evening Prayer and the whole “if I have wounded any soul today…” posture. That’s what’s so jarring about Vance’s move: it’s not a call to reflection, humility, or moral responsibility — it’s the opposite. It’s a permission slip to never examine anything, to treat introspection as an insult, and to confuse “I feel uncomfortable” with “I’m being oppressed.” And you’re right: there are plenty of moments in life where all of us can say “I’m sorry” — not as self-flagellation, but as basic human decency — and he’s deliberately weaponizing the idea of apology so people won’t even consider what accountability might look like.
And yes: “whiteness as status” is ugly, but the uglier truth is exactly what you named — it’s real in the minds of people who want to hold it as a definition for power. That’s why it persists. Not because it’s biologically coherent, but because it’s socially profitable: it organizes who gets the benefit of the doubt, who gets protected, who gets heard, who gets presumed innocent, who gets presumed competent. That’s the “status” part.
Thank you again for reading closely and for sharing such a thoughtful response — and please take care of yourself. Hope you’re on the upswing soon. 🙏🏾🕯️🎄
It's an interesting experiment to look into the proverbial mirror and see the situation from Vance's pov. Imagine that he is the one who is apologizing for being white and he is tired of it. Consider this hypothetical conversation between a couple of good buds. Bud #1; I had to go to the school today and clean up a mess with my son and his interaction with a teacher. I suggested to the principal that the teacher was a (pick your derogatory description here) for speaking of my son like that. The principal stated that we don't talk like that in this school. Bud #2 replies; Oh, so you had to apologize for being white!? Laughter from both.
The feeling behind the phrase "apologize for being white" is not literal, it's figurative. I suggest it's an expression of a reaction by the right to progressive's attempting to continue on with the march to inclusion. Not everyone is on board with that and in this era those who disagree have found a new voice. They may react to that progression with something akin to "I am sick of it" and they use a type of gallows humor to cope.
The bigger question is: How does society as a whole learn what the rest of the herd will accept? Some instances have gathered broad acceptance over the eons, eg don't sleep with your cousin while some are still struggling for universal acceptance, eg. people of all colors are equal. How do we, each of us, learn what the truth is?
Peter — I appreciate the thoughtful tone here, and I get what you’re trying to do by stepping into Vance’s POV.
A few things, though:
1. “Apologize for being white” isn’t a literal demand — but it’s not harmless shorthand either.
I agree it’s often used figuratively. The problem is what it functionally does in politics: it reframes “don’t be racist / don’t defend racial hierarchy / don’t deny history” as “you’re being punished for existing.” That switch turns accountability into persecution, and it’s a very convenient way to shut down any serious conversation about what actually happened (and what still echoes forward).
2. Your school anecdote kind of proves the opposite point.
In the example, the principal says “we don’t talk like that in this school.” That’s not an “apology for being white.” That’s a boundary around derogatory speech. If a person hears “don’t use slurs/derogatory labels” and translates it into “I’m being targeted for being white,” that’s not inclusion run amok — that’s someone refusing to separate identity from behavior. Nobody is saying “you’re bad because you’re white.” They’re saying “don’t be an asshole to other people.” Those aren’t the same thing.
3. Gallows humor is real — but it’s also a shield.
Sure, groups joke to cope. But in this context, the “joke” often protects a deeper message: “Stop asking us to change.” It’s humor deployed as insulation: if you push back, you’re “too sensitive,” and if you don’t, the framing becomes normal. That’s why this line keeps showing up — it’s a political multi-tool.
4. “What will the herd accept?” isn’t the same as “what is true?”
I’m with you on the bigger question, but I’d tighten it: societies often accept things that are wrong for a long time, and they reject things that are right until pressure makes them undeniable. “People of all colors are equal” isn’t a popularity contest statement — it’s a moral claim backed by democratic ideals and equal protection norms. The “herd” has been wrong before, loudly and confidently.
5. So how do we learn what the truth is?
By separating a few things we tend to mash together:
• Identity vs. behavior: you can be white and still oppose racial hierarchy; you can be proud of ancestry without defending “whiteness” as rank.
• Discomfort vs. harm: discomfort at being challenged isn’t the same as being oppressed.
• Inclusion vs. erasure: inclusion doesn’t require pretending history didn’t happen; it requires we stop repeating it.
That’s why I’m hard on Vance’s line. Even if some people mean it figuratively, in practice it trains people to treat basic decency and historical honesty as a personal attack — and that’s a political dead end.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. “we don’t talk like that in this school.” is received by MAGA as an insult, ie don't tell me how to talk or what to say. MAGA to MAGA the response is "they" are trying to make you apologize for being white. They use jokes to obtain approval from the rest of the crowd, to make it seem more acceptable. If everyone is laughing and smiling what could be wrong.
To the MAGA mind they are being attacked for what they are and they don't care to be hen pecked anymore. The administration makes it acceptable to talk back!
I learned societies expectations from my parents, siblings, schools, and later coworkers through the same mechanisms. I suggest the MAGA crowd does not want to be a member of my society anymore, they have a different social structure, and they cherish the support they receive from this administration.
Can we put that snake back under the rock?
Wonderful. One suggestion about the mingling of color, class, and status.
Redlining is real, no matter how many people have changed their house title in an attempt to erase it. But by the very name we all 'know' that practice was 'wrong'. IE, source of inequality. But the emotive marker is discomforting. "Geez, my family got ahead, and that maybe wasn't fair, but we didn't ask....."
Let's try a different story. What made the American middle class and the prosperity of inter-generational wealth? The GI Bill. Who, among White students doesn't have a flash of pride that Grandpa came back from WW2 and got an education and a mortgage. See, hard work. We were poor, but worked hard!
Start the conversation there, and then mention 'qualifications'. How about every family with a Veteran that did not access the GI Bill after WW2 gets one shot for everyone in a generation to access those benefits? Students drop the resistance to discussions on reparations because emotively they SEE it.
Abigail — this is such a smart framing, and I appreciate you taking the time to write it out this clearly.
You’re dead right that redlining is real regardless of how many people try to launder the paper trail after the fact. And you’re also right about the emotional reflex you’re naming: a lot of folks intellectually know it was wrong, but what they feel is discomfort — that “my family benefited and we didn’t personally author the policy, so why does this feel like it’s about me?” That’s exactly where the conversation gets jammed up: not on facts, but on identity-protection and the fear of being assigned personal guilt for structural history.
And I love your pivot to a different entry point: the GI Bill as a story about how the American middle class and intergenerational wealth got built. Because that’s the part people understand instinctively: “Grandpa came home, got a shot at education, got a mortgage, we worked hard, we climbed.” Exactly. That narrative is America’s favorite bedtime story.
But then you add the crucial word: qualifications — and what those “qualifications” looked like in practice when access wasn’t evenly distributed. The point isn’t to erase the hard work; it’s to be honest about the structure that decided who got to convert service and labor into assets and who got blocked, delayed, or shut out. That’s where color, class, and status braid together, because the rules weren’t just written on paper — they were enforced through institutions that treated different groups differently.
And your “one shot per generation” idea is a powerful way to make people see what “repair” can mean without turning it into a guilt ritual. It reframes the conversation from apology theater to policy logic: if a society used government programs and housing policy to accelerate wealth-building for some and restrict it for others, then fairness isn’t just saying “wow, that was unfortunate.” Fairness is asking what it would look like to equalize opportunity in a way that’s legible, concrete, and measurable.
That’s the core point I keep trying to make: nobody’s asking people to grovel for being born into a category. What people want is an honest accounting of how the ladder was built — and who was allowed to climb it — so we can stop pretending unequal outcomes are just a personality test.
Really appreciate this, Abigail. This is exactly the kind of framing that gets people past defensiveness and into understanding.
Took me a while to frame this sensitively to Midwest private college kids. Blew their defenses away in a non-accusatory way. I push it to everyone I can. Thanks for listening.
Down south we call people like eyeliner vance, white trash. I would like an honest apology from his hateful, racist, criminal, murderous, white nationalist self. Maybe he’ll choke on his microphone…
PWT
This is the second Substack I've read today that has made me really stop and think, and need to process. I'm also currently reading "Dying of Whiteness." So many things to make me process.....but it's better than focusing on Venezuela, so for that I thank you.
Pamela — thank you for that. I’m really glad it made you pause and process (that’s honestly the best compliment I can get as a writer).
And yes — Dying of Whiteness is a perfect companion to this whole conversation, because it shows how grievance politics isn’t just ugly… it’s self-destructive, even for the people being sold the lie.
Also: I feel you on the Venezuela-news fatigue. Sometimes the healthiest thing we can do is step back from the “breaking news hamster wheel” and zoom out to the deeper framework underneath it all. I appreciate you reading, and I appreciate you taking the time to sit with it.
Vance simply expressed a belief that's widespread in the administration. Its clearest expression that I know is in last year's executive order, "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History."
This is the document that first introduced the public to Lindsey Halligan, now well known for, well, other things. She may have written the order, although it sounds like Stephen Miller's work. Whoever penned it is a Rip van Winkle who woke up and thought it was spring, 1925.
The order brings up an exhibition that was at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. The order accuses the show of "[promoting] the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct, stating, 'Race is a human invention.'" As I said, Rip van Winkle.
The mind boggles; Stephen Jay Gould is rolling in his grave.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/restoring-truth-and-sanity-to-american-history/
I'm all for Truth And Sanity(TM). Let's get us some of that.
The sticky wicket, though, is which exact *time slice* you choose to use as the datum for your base-line T&S.
East Asians began picking up major economic steam over the last century, becoming 'white' in the process (citation needed, I've read this in a few places). South Asians ('Indians') are on their way. Becoming shocked SHOCKED by the bigotry in his midst, Vivek Ramaswami recently declared he's not having it. No sir.
Whiteitude is not the only social marker that has stupid levels of permeability. My brother in law is a Palestinian Jordanian. Muslim all his life. Prays towards Mecca three times a day. Because he's an intelligent, thoughtful and kind individual, he is widely adored by his neighbors in Texas. They struggle to describe him and just blurt out that he's a "good Christian man" to keep their tiny heads from imploding.
Wesowolf — thank you for bringing receipts instead of vibes. That executive order makes the quiet part loud: Vance’s “no need to apologize for being white” routine isn’t a one-off crowd-pleaser, it’s the public-facing slogan for an actual governing project that treats basic historical literacy like contraband. 
And the irony is almost performance art: the order explicitly takes a swing at the Smithsonian exhibit for saying race isn’t a biological reality but a social construct (“Race is a human invention”)—as if acknowledging what modern scholarship has argued for decades is “indoctrination.”  In other words, the administration is mad that a museum said out loud the thing you learn the minute you stop treating 18th-century pseudoscience like a personality trait.
Also: you’re not imagining the “Stephen Miller energy.” The order literally names Lindsey Halligan as a senior staffer involved in implementing it (in consultation with the Vice President), which tells you this isn’t just rhetorical cosplay—it’s operational. 
“Restoring Truth and Sanity” is an Orwell title for a document that complains the problem is historians pointing out how power and hierarchy were built. Rip van Winkle didn’t wake up in 1925 — somebody’s trying to drag us there on purpose. 
Don't overlook how the order takes aim at a range of unspecified scientific fields, not just history.
It’s DARVO and complete garbage.
Kathy — exactly. That’s the whole play: Deny the history, attack the people pointing to it, then reverse the roles so the folks with power get to cosplay as the victims. It’s DARVO with a campaign logo slapped on it — and yes, complete garbage.
Well, professor, you did it again. Thank you, including for the perfect description - “grievance-industrial complex” that is at the rotted root of MAGA - for another excellent essay.
I was born in 1955 and grew up during the Civil Rights and Women’s Rights movements. I had an older brother, four years older, who was happy to tote his kid sister along so many of my experiences were aligned with his. It mattered to him that I was properly educated (in his eyes) so he took me to the trial of Black Panthers Erika Huggins and Bobby Seale, and later into NYC to learn about the Sweat Equity housing program he worked on. I’ve always valued the ideals I grew up with, imagining an America that would be better for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.
We grew up in an affluent community in Westchester County, NY. I am aware of my white privilege and the access I had for being white, though I never felt the need to apologize for that.
Women remain lower in the white hierarchy (as do all women regardless of race or ethnicity) - Americans voted for a Black man before a white woman, and a racist felon over a Black woman. Yes, we’ve come a long way, as the saying goes, but as Nancy Pelosi recently said, that ceiling isn’t glass, it’s marble.
Vance, whether or not a racist, has to play a racist to belong in the cult, and his aspirations far outweigh his values. The cancellations of DEI programs is another ridiculous play at encouraging the racists to feel better about themselves and their racism (and misogyny).
America is in a very bad place. The American ideals instilled in me as a young person growing up in the 60s are gone. I’ve long said our species needs to be vanquished so a new, more-evolved species can take over while earth is still habitable.
Lynn — thank you for this. And thank you for seeing exactly what I was aiming at with “grievance-industrial complex.” That’s the engine: monetize resentment, sell it as identity, and then call everyone else divisive for pointing out the scam.
Your story about growing up in the Civil Rights/Women’s Rights era — and especially your brother taking you to the Erika Huggins/Bobby Seale trial and then exposing you to the sweat-equity housing work — is the kind of formative political education people don’t forget. That’s not “politics as fandom.” That’s politics as systems, power, and consequences. And it tracks with what you said next: valuing an America that’s better for everyone, regardless of race/ethnicity/gender. That’s the whole point of the project.
I also appreciate how you framed privilege: being aware of the access you had because you were white, without turning it into some performative “apology ritual.” That’s the exact distinction Vance tries to blur on purpose. Acknowledgment isn’t self-flagellation. It’s just… honesty. And honesty is what grievance politics can’t survive.
And you’re right about women sitting lower in the hierarchy — even within whiteness. We really did watch this country elect a Black man before it elected a white woman, and then (even more grotesquely) choose a racist felon over a Black woman. That’s why the Pelosi line hits: that ceiling isn’t glass — it’s marble. Heavy. Structural. Built to last unless people break it.
Your read on Vance is dead on too: whether he’s personally racist in his heart-of-hearts is almost beside the point. He’s playing the role because the MAGA coalition requires it. His ambition outweighs his values, so he performs the script — and the DEI cancellations are part of that same performance. They’re not “neutral policy.” They’re a signal to the worst people in the room that the shame is gone and the boundaries are off — racism and misogyny get to feel respectable again.
Now — on your last point: I hear the exhaustion and disgust behind it. But I can’t ride with “our species needs to be vanquished.” I get the impulse (because gestures broadly at everything), but I’m not giving up the idea that humans can get better — and I’m not giving the cruel people the satisfaction of thinking they’re the final chapter. The move, to me, is the opposite: stay human on purpose, stay engaged on purpose, and keep building coalitions that make the grift politically expensive.
Thank you again, Lynn. Your comment is a reminder that a better America isn’t a naïve fantasy — it’s something people have fought for before, and it’s still worth fighting for now.
I think one reason I enjoy our conversation on your Substack so much is because you remind me a bit of the young men my brother would bring home from college on the weekends to engage in debates with my conservative parents. It definitely was an experience for 14-year-old me watching my dad get his ass kicked (metaphorically) by my brother and his peers.
Regarding vanquishing our species - not so much because of how we treat each other, which at times is awful, but because of our disregard for our earth. She’s all we’ve got and I fear she may not survive us.
Emperor Cheeto Of The Western Hemisphere
Questions ask why the US is involved in Venezuela? Cheeto ran a campaign counter to such an invasion of countries but of course he lied about so many promises since he wanted to stay out of jail
Despite the fact that Venezuela has the world's largest proven oil reserves the type of oil that the country brings out of the ground is a dirty petroleum product because it requires many many steps to get a marketable product Venezuelan oil accounts for only 1% of the overall global oil production
So if it’s not about a valuable oil product, then is the US military Venezuelan capture of an awful tyrant like Maduro the real reason for this US military action? Maybe but corruption, power, and money always are the motivating factors for Cheeto who desires to be tough guy strongman who can become the bully of countries in the Western hemisphere It sets the tone to all other Western hemisphere countries
In the end there are many reasons Emperor Cheeto decided to arrest a fellow dictator He’s an impulsive malignant narcissist with loyalists willing to do his bidding and oil which is a gift to the American oil industry and its campaign donors is another piece of this bizarro puzzle Then there’s the Nobel Peace Prize Venezuelan activist who Cheeto flipped off when she offered the US help Polling numbers suck and health insurance costs are going up for millions And the action does serve as a great distraction from the haunting Epstein files and the news networks are swallowing the bait
So apparently Shady JD thinks his own wife and his children are inferior beings. I'll bet that makes for a happy family.
Mary — “Shady JD” really is out here selling a hierarchy that, if you take it seriously, turns his own household into a walking contradiction.
I won’t pretend I know what he believes about his family personally, but I will say this: when you traffic in “white grievance” politics and wink at “white pride” logic, you’re feeding an ideology that does treat interracial families like a problem to be explained away. And that’s why the whole act is so clownish — he wants the political benefits of the dog whistle without owning the ugly purity rules the dog whistle was built for.
I think, that in addition to being a dyed-in-the-wool racist, Shady is blowing the dog whistle because he is convinced it is to his political advantage to do so. He knows his boss Agolf Shitler is on short time so Shady is desperate to hold onto to the MAGA moron (but I repeat myself) base. He knows he isn't the MAGAT Cult's fair-haired boy so he is desperate to win them over. Thus, the dog whistles. Shady is an opportunist of the worst sort.
My mother's dad was Italian. Couldn't get certain jobs, because Italians weren't white yet. He had to elope with her mom, because her parents didn't approve. Ironically, she was part Irish, but the Irish had become white by then.
Race is bullshit.
Earl — this is exactly the point, and thank you for putting real family history on it.
Your story captures how “white” in America has never been a stable identity—it’s been a moving membership card. Italians being treated as “not quite white” (and locked out of certain jobs/social acceptance), then later being folded into whiteness, is the whole “rank” dynamic in action. Same with the Irish: once upon a time they were racialized as outsiders, then over time they got admitted into the category as the boundaries of “white” expanded when it became politically useful.
And the elopement detail matters, too, because it shows this wasn’t abstract theory—this was real social policing of who counted, who belonged, who was “acceptable.”
So yeah: when you say “race is bullshit,” I read that as race as a biological fact is bullshit—but race as a social system unfortunately has been very real in people’s lives. Which is why Vance’s grievance line is so ridiculous: he’s treating whiteness like some innocent heritage under attack, when the history is that whiteness has functioned like a gate-kept status—and the gate has moved whenever it needed to.
We tend to hate the people we have harmed because they are the cause of our shame.
I wonder how his brown wife and children are feeling right about now.