Allyship, at its core, should mean standing in solidarity with marginalized communities, actively supporting their voices, and creating space for their narratives to be heard. However, a troubling shift has occurred, turning allyship into a form of performative activism that centers the ally rather than the community they claim to support. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "white saviorism," has colonized the idea of allyship, diluting its effectiveness and distorting its purpose. Adding to the complexity, critics often twist this term to discourage real allyship, further marginalizing the communities that need support.
What is White Saviorism?
White saviorism refers to the act of individuals from privileged backgrounds, often white, positioning themselves as the heroes or rescuers of marginalized communities. The "savior" feels they are uniquely qualified to "fix" problems in these communities, often without a deep understanding of the issues or any real connection to the people they are supposedly helping. This behavior tends to center the ally’s experience and narrative, shifting the focus away from the actual needs, voices, and autonomy of those being helped.
White saviorism reinforces existing power imbalances and treats marginalized communities as incapable or voiceless, effectively speaking over them. It promotes the idea that they need rescuing by someone outside their own community—often disregarding the rich histories, knowledge, and resilience that these communities already possess.
Weaponizing White Saviorism to Silence True Allies
A disturbing trend has emerged where conservatives and racists accuse genuine allies of being "white saviors" to discredit and shame them. When someone is sincerely amplifying Indigenous or marginalized voices, this label is often weaponized, twisting their allyship into something negative. The goal is to corrupt the idea of allyship, making it seem performative or harmful, causing confusion and discouraging support altogether.
This tactic is designed to make true allies question their intentions. In environments where the line between allyship and white saviorism can feel unclear, allies can become paralyzed, worried that their efforts to amplify voices are actually causing harm. By sowing doubt, critics seek to create a chilling effect, causing supporters to second-guess their actions and pull back from supporting marginalized communities.
How White Saviorism Differs from True Allyship
True allyship is about solidarity, listening, and acting in a supportive role. It doesn’t assume superiority or expertise over the marginalized group but acknowledges the privilege that comes with being part of a dominant group and using that privilege to create space for others.
Here are key differences between allyship and white saviorism:
Centering Marginalized Voices vs. Centering the Ally: Allyship prioritizes amplifying the voices and experiences of those who are oppressed. In contrast, white saviorism often puts the ally’s feelings, actions, and image at the forefront.
Listening and Learning vs. Leading and Controlling: Genuine allies listen and learn from the communities they are allied with. White saviorism involves assuming control of the narrative, believing the "savior" knows best how to fix the situation.
Sharing Power vs. Maintaining Power: True allies recognize the importance of distributing power and stepping back when necessary. White saviors often maintain power by keeping themselves in a leadership position.
Longevity vs. Trend: Allyship is a long-term commitment to justice and equity, even when it’s uncomfortable or unpopular. White saviorism is often performative and short-lived, existing only when it’s trendy or advantageous.
Speaking Alongside, Not Over
One of the biggest problems with white saviorism is how it silences the very communities it claims to support. By taking center stage, white saviors not only speak over marginalized voices but can also reinforce harmful stereotypes and further marginalize the people they’re supposedly helping. In contrast, a true ally recognizes that marginalized communities are fully capable of speaking for themselves, but they might not always have access to spaces or platforms to be heard.
For example, when an Indigenous group fights for land rights, an ally doesn’t swoop in to speak on their behalf. Instead, they might use their privilege to connect Indigenous leaders with the media or provide a platform for them to tell their own story. In conversations about racism, an ally listens to and defers to the lived experiences of those impacted, rather than offering their own "insight" into the matter.
Conservatives and racists exploit this nuance, using it to accuse true allies of being "white saviors." This tactic serves to erode allyship by making true supporters feel as though they are betraying marginalized communities, pushing them away from taking action. By framing allyship as harmful, they prevent real change from happening and leave marginalized voices without the support they need.
Creating Space for Marginalized Voices
Lifting up marginalized voices requires more than just retweeting or sharing posts. It involves creating meaningful, accessible platforms and opportunities for those voices to be heard. This can take many forms, such as:
Inviting marginalized speakers to events: Instead of a non-Indigenous person leading a discussion on Indigenous rights, invite Indigenous leaders to share their own experiences.
Sharing resources and platforms: If you have access to media, organizations, or other platforms that a marginalized group may not, offer those resources to them to amplify their message.
Advocating in rooms where marginalized people are excluded: Many times, marginalized voices are not welcome or invited into decision-making spaces. If you have access to those rooms, advocate for the inclusion of marginalized voices or, at the very least, bring their concerns and ideas to the forefront.
Financial support: Supporting marginalized communities also means addressing economic disparities. Donate to organizations that are led by and support marginalized communities or pay marginalized individuals for their labor, time, and expertise.
Examples of Effective Allyship
1. Indigenous Land Back Movements: Non-Indigenous allies supporting Indigenous land rights don’t speak on behalf of Indigenous communities but use their privilege to amplify Indigenous voices, advocate for Indigenous leadership in decision-making, and back their demands politically and socially.
2. Black Lives Matter Movement: White allies attending protests or advocating for Black lives recognize that the movement is not about their voices or experiences. They show up, listen, and act in support, allowing Black leaders and activists to guide the direction of the movement.
3. Gender Equality Advocacy: Men advocating for gender equality should create space for women to voice their concerns and experiences rather than dominating conversations or dictating what equality should look like. Allies here act by supporting women-led initiatives and amplifying feminist voices.
Conclusion
Genuine allyship involves speaking alongside marginalized communities, not for them. It requires active listening, humility, and an ongoing commitment to supporting those who have historically been silenced or excluded. White saviorism, on the other hand, centers the ally, maintaining the very power structures it claims to challenge.
Adding to the challenge, conservatives and racists frequently use the term "white savior" to shame true allies, making them question their good intentions. This is a deliberate attempt to weaken solidarity and diminish support for marginalized communities, ensuring that real change is slowed or stopped altogether.
True allies must remain vigilant, recognizing that amplifying voices is a necessary part of social justice. While there is a fine line between allyship and white saviorism, allies who listen, learn, and create space for marginalized voices should not be swayed by those attempting to twist their intentions into something negative.