A few weeks ago, much of social media, plain Jane's ,average Joe's, nosey Rosie's, chatty Kathy's, lethargic Lou's (yes I made that one up), other private citizens and and various segments the mainstream media whipping themselves in a frenzied tizzy over the article written by New York Times reporter Richard Fausset A voice of Hatred in America's Heartland that appeared in the November 25th edition of the paper. Fausset profiled Tony Hovater, a young millennial family man and self avowed Nazi who resides in New Carlise, Ohio. Many people who read the piece (that includes me), were surprised, shocked and in many cases, outraged by what appeared to be a sympathetic or at the very least, ambivalent profile of Hovater and his ardent, unabashed White supremacist viewpoints. Reaction was swift across the political and religious spectrum.

Numerous New York Times readers lambasted, Faussset and went to town, criticizing the Times editorial staff for publishing such an uncritical assessment of a person who harbors racial and religious hatred (despite his denials) and strongly advocates for the nation where people are segregated based on racial pigmentation. To be sure, the “ Tony Horvath, is just a regular family man, who loves video games, certain classic television shows, certain food etc...” you just good ol' fun loving all American Tony was very troubling, arguably disingenuous and potentially dangerous due to the that such an article whether intentionally or not, inadvertently normalized White supremacy. Feeling the heat, the New York Times conceded that Mr. Fausett's article had fallen short of NYT standards and indeed Fausset himself admitted as much.

Hoopla and dissent aside, and there was indeed legitimate criticisms of the entire episode, the more interesting we should be asking ourselves was Fausett's attitude and coverage of his subject an aberration or par for the course as it relates to mainstream attitudes about White supremacists? To be sure, if interviewed about the question, the average person would vehemently deny (at least in public or in mixed company) the fact that they harbor racial or religious hatred toward others who are different from them. Indeed, as a society we have evolved to a level where views that would have been seen as socially acceptable as late as the 1950s or even early to mid 1960s are no longer embraced (at least in public, though we are seeing some changes on this front largely due to the covert and in some cases, blatantly overt signals coming from the current white house) by the majority of people and are largely seen as taboo. Thus, the level of public scorn heaped upon Fausset and his colleagues at the Times was not all that surprising.

However, for many of us who are people of color, we know all too well in our dealings with many White people, even those with generally good intentions, that more often than not, racial attitudes and bias are more often than not, bubbling under the surface. Indeed, the vices of White fragility, White denial and yes, White supremacy tend to rear their sinister heads. The fact is that more than a few Whites, including some who identify as liberal or progressive, harbor negative, or at the very least ambivalent attitudes about Black and for the most part, other non-White people. What is more troubling is that many liberals (particularly those of the hipster persuasion) are all too willing to normalize

White supremacy while at the same time, vehemently deny that they possess such attitudes.

These are also the same Whites who do not hesitate to utilize all the privileges and advantages that come along with being White, yet are often reluctant to call out or acknowledge systemic and systematic racism that continues to have deeply pernicious effects on the lives of many people of color in this nation in the forms of gentrification, police brutality, subprime lending, sub par educational systems, deplorably inadequate health care and other social ills. These are often same “enlightened people” who usually remain silent when a neighbor, relative or co-worker makes a disparaging remark about a certain ethnic or religious group. These are the same and men and women who read the Times piece, recoiled in shock and disgust, yet failed to realize that they themselves were possibly not too far removed from similar attitudes that they chided Mr. Fausset (and rightly so) for.

What is more important is to acknowledge is the fact that White supremacy can be varied and multifaceted. He or she is your next door neighbor, the man or woman who serves you coffee with a smile at the local Starbucks. The tweed wearing elderly college professor who passionately lectures to others from behind the podium in the lecture hall. The dry cleaner who handles your shirts and suits. The guy who works out at the same local fitness center you do. The man or woman you frequently see at the local juice or sushi bar who cracks a nod and even engages in conversation (often small talk) with you. The police officer who is sworn to uphold the law and so on.

White supremacy is everywhere and anywhere. It can be subtle, sly, seductive, reductive and unsuspecting to those possessed with it. Too many White people, in particular, progressive and liberals are under the assumption that due to the fact that they do not have a swastika in their drawer, a white sheet or hood in their closet, do not espouse racial or ethnic slurs or would never intentionally mistreat a person of color, that they are immune from racism, anti-Semitism and other related vices. Such a self-righteous mindset is dangerously misguided.

It would likely behoove some of those who were outraged by what they read in the New York Times (and other mainstream media outlets) to do some deep soul searching, reflection and ask the question am I really that much different? You may or may not like the answer you receive, but the truth is that you will be forced to confront your value system. What better gift could a person ask for?