An Above-Average Book About Mediocre White Men

A white man edited this review that a white man wrote about a Black woman’s life’s work

From his warnings of Mexican rapists to his Twitter tantrums as courts across the nation rejected his efforts to overturn the legal results of the election, the 45th President has taught a master class in American white male mediocrity.

While Donald Trump elevated these defects to Wagnerian swells, they aren’t anything new. In Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America, Ijeoma Oluo does the hard work—while making it look easy—of exploring how the behavior of shitty white men has made it impossible for people to have nice things throughout our history.

Mediocre

For all the white guys out there who may be put off by the provocative title, let me, a white man of a certain age, assure you: Oluo, author of So You Want to Talk about Race?, goes out of her way to say that while all of us have work to do, we’re not all terrible. And that everyone pays a price in a culture that long ago assented to letting rich white men call the shots while throwing scraps to curry the support of their less-well-off beige brothers and sisters.

“White male mediocrity is a baseline, the dominant narrative [and] everything in our society is centered around preserving white male power regardless of white male skill or talent,” she writes. “The rewarding of white male mediocrity not only limits the drive and imagination of white men; it also requires forced limitations on the success of women and people of color to deliver on the promised white male supremacy. White male mediocrity harms us all.”

Oluo takes a panoramic approach to telling her story, combining autobiography, analysis, history, and creative and sometimes surprising connections with a voice that’s alternately humorous, angry and at times deeply pained. The opening chapter, “Cowboys and Patriots: How the West Was Won,” is a case in point.

The chapter starts with anecdotes of a distant relation’s paranoid social media posts, including a highly dubious yarn concerning a confrontation with a “thug” wearing a “hoodie.” From there she jumps to the late 19th century where Buffalo Bill’s increasingly over-the-top stage shows celebrate whites winning the west from Native Americans. These manifest destiny extravaganzas, and the surrounding pop culture of the era, set an image of white male identity that informs just about every prestige drama on HBO: solitary, violent, fighting for a cause. From there she skips to 19th Century conflicts between the U.S. government and the Mormons before returning to the present, the Bundy standoff, and anti-government resentment for our first Black President. It’s a compelling way to make the point that the past isn’t past and has corrupted our culture and our politics.

“The idea of the cowboy as an honest everyman played a large part in the iconography that made George W. Bush so popular with white men in his presidential campaign,” she writes. “The idea of a a white man going it alone against the world has stuck. It is the one of the strongest identifiers of American culture and politics, where cooperation is weakness and others are the enemy—to be stolen from or conquered.”

From there Oluo shows how white men have centered themselves in social-justice movements, blocked women and people of color from the workplace, attacked colleges as they’ve expanded their franchise beyond white men, pressed for de facto segregation well after the death of Jim Crow, vilified female politicians in the most repulsive manner, and kept Black men from participating in college and professional sports until it was no longer tenable. The decidedly mediocre George Preston Marshall, founder of the club now known as the Washington Football Team, almost singlehandedly kept black players out of the NFL for years and only integrated his team in 1962 when the federal government threatened to block access to D.C. Stadium. Some of this history may be familiar, but by connecting the different threads—and including stories of harassment against her and her family—Oluo’s telling makes an impact.

Mediocre White musicians

Oluo doesn’t explore the entertainment world in her book. White male mediocrity is, however, a through line in Michelangelo Matos’s Can’t Slow Down: How 1984 Became Pop’s Breakout Year. One reason it was a breakout year is that the music industry, having been through a rough slump—“Physical” was 1982’s year-end top single on Billboard—finally started taking more risks with Black artists. This was a journey.

White radio listeners freaked out when their stations changed formats. MTV, which barely showed any videos from Black performers, initially balked at “Beat It.” Herbie Hancock deliberately kept a low profile in the video for “Rockit.” But no matter: “In the August 25 issue of Billboard, for the first time ever Black artists accounted for six of the top ten pop albums and singles.” Still, the man’s preferences ran square. Mediocre adult contemporary crooner Lionel Richie would win a Grammy for the album that gives the book its title, while “When Doves Cry” by Prince, the year’s biggest hit, didn’t get a nomination.

Bernie would have won

A reader is bound to have nits with a book that has the breadth of “Mediocre,” and if I had one it would be its treatment of Bernie Sanders and his campaign.

Oluo supports much of Bernie’s program, but she’s critical of the messenger and his followers. Understandably. It is undeniable that white male leftists have long privileged discussions of class over race (and gender, and sexual identify and…) in ways that have been clumsy when not offensive. Sanders has, to put it mildly, been less than perfect on this point. It’s also undeniable that while every campaign attracts trolls, the Sanders campaign spawned more than its share. The extent to which they define the Sanders campaign is a different question, though not one I would necessarily put to someone who’s been on the other side of a swarm attack.

But the Bernie campaign was more than a movement of young, angry white men. Indeed, Oluo acknowledges Bernie polled well with younger women and people of color. One wishes she would have asked some of these people why. Oluo makes the point that everyone is complicit in white mediocrity and moving past it will require the support of white men. Given that, it stands to reason that a conversation with young non-white male Bernie supporter, or a not-so-young supporter like, say, Killer Mike, could have led to an illuminating and important conversation about how they could improve a flawed movement.

But this is a small complaint for a book that does an admirable job of digging deep into the past to shine light on the present. Oluo wrote “Mediocre” when the outcome of the 2020 election was uncertain. We know that 45 won’t be with us for much longer. But we also know that much of the dysfunction he rubbed our faces in may actually get worse. It’s easy to despair. Oluo rejects that. Despite everything, Oluo insists that a system that people created can also change because of people, even if it won’t be easy. “We have to not only believe that we deserve better, we have to have faith that we can do better,” she concludes. “And we have to start now.”

(Basic Books, December 1, 2020)

 You May Also Like

Jim Arndorfer

Jim Arndorfer is a writer in Milwaukee.

10 thoughts on “An Above-Average Book About Mediocre White Men

  • January 5, 2021 at 4:33 pm
    Permalink

    The author of this book writes that “everything in our society is centered around preserving white male power regardless of white male skill or talent.” Really? Everything?

    Let us, as they say, examine this assumption. It would be good to know what, if any, methodology underlies the author’s claim. As Jordan Peterson can tell you, most people in prison are men, most people living on the street are men, a very large majority of suicides are men, and men hold many of the really dangerous and thankless jobs in our society. Just look at the statistics on job-related accidents and injuries for corroboration.

    White men, of course, are very heavily represented in all the above categories. So, Peterson would ask, where is the advantage?

    What a silly book. It is well past time to stop giving a pass to minority and women writers who make bigoted statements the likes of which we would never excuse if they came from (you guessed it) white men.

    Reply
    • January 7, 2021 at 8:44 pm
      Permalink

      Have you, as they say, read the book?

      Reply
      • January 8, 2021 at 10:53 am
        Permalink

        Do you, as they say, not like my work very much?

        Reply
  • January 9, 2021 at 3:43 am
    Permalink

    Depends. Did you excoriate a critic by asking whether she had “read a word of Lovecraft or bothered to gain any acquaintance with the biographies and critical commentary” and then publicly dismiss the writing and methodology of a book you hadn’t actually read? If so, then no, can’t say as I’m warming to it.

    Reply
    • January 9, 2021 at 12:23 pm
      Permalink

      Spider, there is obviously a difference between writing a big feature in the NYT (as Soloski did) spending several thousand words disparaging Lovecraft without being familiar with his work, and my leaving a tiny comment here in response to a review. I would never write a brazenly uninformed review of a book or essay about an author, as Soloski did.

      Reply
  • January 9, 2021 at 4:45 pm
    Permalink

    I see you’re still unwilling to say the words: “No, I didn’t read the book before publicly dismissing it.” You put your byline on the statement and sent it out for the public to digest–doesn’t matter if it’s in the NYT or a comments section, if you’re a real scholar and not a clown play-acting as one that’s the point at which you have to be able to stand by them. I read the Soloski piece. She doesn’t much care for Lovecraft’s work, but it’s clear she at least took the time to familiarize herself with it. (Despite misspelling “Shub-Niggurath,” which I’m sure you had many a good harrumph over.)

    As I’m sure you’re quite busy, I’ve taken the time to write out the reply I expect to receive, which you’re welcome to copy and paste in lieu of answering the original question: “Spider, as you’re clearly uninterested in having a civil discussion I see no purpose in further responding to you. You lack an understanding of true scholarship and, frankly, I’m not entirely sure you even read the comment to which you’re replying.” À bientôt!

    Reply
    • January 10, 2021 at 8:47 am
      Permalink

      Do you know anything about books and book reviewing? It is customary, on reading a review, to say “This book sounds interesting, I’ll check it out,” or “This sounds like a silly book and a waste of time. I won’t bother.”

      I said the latter, give or take a word. You try to nail me a trivial semantic point here, and think you are being so clever.

      Reply
      • January 10, 2021 at 6:22 pm
        Permalink

        There it is! The old “Well I think you don’t actually know anything about this subject” I was expecting. In your shoes I might have saved that for an argument that wasn’t about me personally acting like an expert on things I haven’t read, but different strokes.

        You didn’t say “This sounds like a silly book and a waste of time. I won’t bother.” You wrote at least a hundred words trying to dispute the central thesis of a book you haven’t read, citing statistics that either have nothing to do with the book’s central argument–it’s not implying that “The lives of men are universally great and as a demographic they suffer very little,” and that’s obvious both from the book itself and from the review to which you’re responding–or that you present disingenuously: the majority of people in prison and on the street may be men, but the majority of the men in those populations aren’t white, which is the demographic discussed in this book. You say “Let us, as they say, examine this assumption. It would be good to know what, if any, methodology underlies the author’s claim.” You could learn all about the author’s methodology if you read the book, but not having done so you seem to imply that it must be lacking or absent. That’s what I’m calling out here, but of course you knew that.

        Look, I don’t expect anything from you here. You’ve demonstrated pretty conclusively that the phrase “I made a mistake, I’ll try to do better next time” isn’t in your vocabulary. I’m just here to remind you that there’s an audience reading, and that all the sesquipedalian legerdemain in the world can’t distract from it if the argument you’re presenting doesn’t hold up. Cheers.

        Reply
  • January 10, 2021 at 8:09 pm
    Permalink

    Some people have way too much time on their hands.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.