“Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: Rethinking Women of Color Organizing” by Andrea Smith: Summary and Critique

1. Critique of Traditional Women of Color Organizing

• The essay begins by questioning the conventional approach to “women of color” organizing, which assumes that different racial groups experience white supremacy in the same way.
• Smith critiques the “oppression olympics” explanation for conflicts in organizing spaces, arguing that these conflicts stem from an inadequate political framework rather than competition over who is most oppressed (Smith, p. 67).
• She states that the usual model of unity—overlapping circles of racial groups like a Venn diagram—is misleading: “This framework has proven to be limited for women of color and people of color organizing” (Smith, p. 67).

2. Introduction to the “Three Pillars of White Supremacy”

Smith proposes an alternative framework that recognizes distinct but interconnected forms of oppression:

1. Slavery/Capitalism – Black people are positioned as inherently “slaveable,” meaning their oppression is rooted in their commodification as property. This logic sustains capitalism by racializing economic hierarchy (Smith, p. 68).
2. Genocide/Colonialism – Indigenous peoples must “disappear” to justify settler colonialism. This erasure enables non-Natives to claim land and Indigenous culture while denying ongoing Indigenous presence (Smith, p. 69).
3. Orientalism/War – Asian, Arab, and Latinx communities are marked as “perpetual foreign threats,” legitimizing U.S. militarization and imperialism (Smith, p. 69).

3. Slavery and Capitalism: The Enslavability of Blackness

• The logic of slavery dictates that Blackness is inherently linked to property and commodification, which persists in systems like the prison-industrial complex.
• Smith explains that, post-slavery, Black people became “state property” through systems like convict leasing, which “rendered Black people as inherently slaveable—as nothing more than property” (Smith, p. 68).
• The racial hierarchy encourages non-Black people to accept their subordinate economic positions because “at least they are not at the very bottom of the racial hierarchy” (Smith, p. 68).

4. Genocide and Colonialism: The Erasure of Indigenous Peoples

• The logic of genocide works by constantly portraying Indigenous people as “disappearing,” thus legitimizing settler colonialism.
• Smith quotes Ella Shohat and Robert Stam’s concept of the “present absence”: Native people exist but are treated as though they are vanishing, reinforcing the right of non-Natives to Indigenous lands (Smith, p. 69).
• The “wannabe Indian” phenomenon, where non-Natives claim Indigenous identity or spiritual practices, is also an extension of this logic, as Rayna Green notes: “The living performance of ‘playing Indian’… depends upon the physical and psychological removal, even the death, of real Indians” (Smith, p. 69).

5. Orientalism and War: Justification for Imperialism

• The logic of Orientalism positions certain racial groups, particularly Arabs, Asians, and Latinx peoples, as permanent outsiders and threats to Western civilization.
• The U.S. state legitimizes racial profiling and military expansion under the guise of “protecting itself” from these racialized threats (Smith, p. 69).
• Smith cites Sora Han’s argument that the U.S. is not just at war, but is war, meaning that white supremacy requires perpetual war to sustain itself (Smith, p. 69).

6. The Role of Heteropatriarchy in White Supremacy

• Smith argues that heteropatriarchy is the foundation of white supremacy and U.S. empire-building.
• She explains how the Christian Right connects the nuclear family to national security: “We must preserve traditional marriage in order to protect the United States from those who would use our depravity to destroy us” (Smith, p. 72).
• The patriarchal family model mirrors the hierarchical structure of the state, where men rule women as elites rule over oppressed groups (Smith, p. 73).

7. Organizing Beyond Shared Victimhood: Challenging Complicity

• Instead of basing solidarity on shared oppression, Smith calls for recognizing how different groups are complicit in each other’s oppression.
• For example, Indigenous people resisting U.S. colonialism must also oppose U.S. militarism, since “Native peoples who join the military become complicit in U.S. imperial wars” (Smith, p. 70).
• This approach prevents activists from reinforcing white supremacy through their organizing and ensures that “our model of liberation does not become the model of oppression for others” (Smith, p. 70).

8. Conclusion: Toward a New Politics of Solidarity

• Smith urges women of color organizers to move beyond simplistic multiculturalism and oppression hierarchies.
• She calls for a decolonial, anti-capitalist, and anti-heteropatriarchal model of resistance that challenges all forms of white supremacy without reinforcing them (Smith, p. 73).
• This means rejecting the idea that the U.S. is a democracy with “flaws” and instead recognizing that “genocide is the law of the country” (Smith, p. 70).

1. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

• Challenges the Black/White Binary in CRT:
  • Smith critiques the dominance of the Black/white binary in racial justice frameworks, arguing that white supremacy functions through multiple racializing logics.
  • “Simply saying we need to move beyond the black/white binary…obfuscates the racializing logic of slavery and prevents us from seeing that this binary constitutes Blackness as the bottom of a color hierarchy” (Smith, p. 71).
• Introduces the Three Pillars Framework to CRT:
  • Unlike traditional CRT, which often focuses on legal structures of racism, Smith presents a multi-axis racial framework beyond a single system of oppression.
  • “White supremacy is constituted by separate and distinct, but still interrelated, logics” (Smith, p. 67).

2. Intersectionality and Women of Color Feminism

• Critiques Traditional Women of Color Organizing Models:
  • Smith argues that organizing based on shared oppression is inadequate because different racial groups experience white supremacy in distinct ways.
  • “This framework has proven to be limited for women of color and people of color organizing” (Smith, p. 67).
• Emphasizes the Role of Heteropatriarchy in Oppression:
  • Smith extends intersectionality by linking racial oppression directly to heteronormativity and patriarchy.
  • “Heteropatriarchy is the building block of US empire. In fact, it is the building block of the nation-state form of governance” (Smith, p. 72).

3. Postcolonial Theory

• Expands Postcolonial Framework to Indigenous Peoples in Settler Colonies:
  • While postcolonial theory often focuses on former colonies, Smith emphasizes ongoing settler colonialism in the U.S.
  • “The pillar of genocide serves as the anchor for colonialism—it is what allows non-Native peoples to feel they can rightfully own Indigenous peoples’ land” (Smith, p. 69).
• Introduces the Concept of the “Present Absence”:
  • She critiques how Indigenous peoples are symbolically included in narratives but structurally erased.
  • “Kate Shanley notes, Native peoples are a permanent ‘present absence’ in the US colonial imagination” (Smith, p. 69).

4. Queer Theory

• Critiques Heteronormativity as a Foundation of White Supremacy:
  • Smith argues that queer and feminist struggles must be central to racial justice movements, rather than secondary.
  • “Any liberation struggle that does not challenge heteronormativity cannot substantially challenge colonialism or white supremacy” (Smith, p. 73).
• Connects the Family Unit to Colonial and Imperial Control:
  • She exposes how heteropatriarchal family structures sustain nationalism and state control, a core argument in queer critiques of the state.
  • “Christian Right politics work through the private family (which is coded as white, patriarchal, and middle class) to create a ‘Christian America’” (Smith, p. 72).

5. Indigenous Studies and Settler Colonial Theory

• Critiques the Erasure of Indigenous Peoples in Racial Discourse:
  • Smith argues that U.S. racial discourse often ignores Indigenous people’s unique structural positioning under white supremacy.
  • “In the United States, democracy is actually the alibi for genocide—it is the practice that covers up United States colonial control over Indigenous lands” (Smith, p. 70).
• Positions Genocide as a Pillar of White Supremacy:
  • Unlike many theories that focus on slavery and racial discrimination, Smith explicitly names genocide as a necessary logic of settler colonialism.
  • “Genocide is not just a historical event—it is an ongoing process that justifies settler claims to land” (Smith, p. 69).

6. Marxist Theory and Critique of Capitalism

• Links Capitalism to Anti-Black Racism:
  • Smith extends Marxist critiques of capitalism by showing that capitalism depends on the logic of Black enslavability.
  • “To keep this capitalist system in place…the logic of slavery applies a racial hierarchy to this system” (Smith, p. 68).
• Critiques How Racial Groups Become Complicit in Capitalist Exploitation:
  • She challenges simplistic anti-capitalist narratives that do not address racial complicity in systems of economic oppression.
  • “Our survival strategies and resistance to white supremacy are set by the system of white supremacy itself” (Smith, p. 70).

7. Critique of Multiculturalism

• Challenges Superficial Inclusion in Social Movements:
  • Smith argues that simply including more racial groups in discussions does not dismantle white supremacy.
  • “This model does not address the nuanced structure of white supremacy, such as through these distinct logics of slavery, genocide, and Orientalism” (Smith, p. 71).
• Calls for Solidarity Based on Structural Positioning, Not Shared Victimhood:
  • She critiques multiculturalism’s focus on representation instead of dismantling systemic oppression.
  • “Our alliances would not be solely based on shared victimization, but where we are complicit in the victimization of others” (Smith, p. 70).

1. Oversimplification of Racial Oppression into Three Pillars

• Some scholars argue that reducing white supremacy into only three pillars (Slavery/Capitalism, Genocide/Colonialism, and Orientalism/War) oversimplifies the complexities of racial oppression.
• The essay does not fully account for anti-Blackness in non-Western contexts or colorism within communities of color.
• Some critics believe that focusing on three separate logics risks neglecting intersections where groups experience multiple forms of oppression simultaneously.

2. Neglect of Intra-Group Differences and Class

• Smith’s framework assumes all members of a racial group experience oppression similarly, without fully engaging in class analysis.
• Critique from Marxist scholars: While she links capitalism to white supremacy, she does not engage deeply with economic class struggles or how capitalism functions differently in non-U.S. contexts.
• Not all Black people experience oppression solely through the “logic of slavery”, nor do all Indigenous people relate only through “genocide”—some face marginalization through economic exclusion, migration policies, or state surveillance.

3. Lack of Agency for Marginalized Communities

• Some scholars argue that her framework paints marginalized groups as passive subjects of white supremacy, without exploring agency, resistance, and subversion.
• The essay does not sufficiently address how women of color resist oppression through their own cultural, political, and social frameworks rather than just being positioned in opposition to white supremacy.

4. U.S.-Centric Perspective

• Critics from postcolonial studies argue that Smith’s work is highly U.S.-centric, overlooking how race and white supremacy function differently outside of the U.S..
• The framework does not sufficiently address global struggles, such as the role of Black and Indigenous people in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
• Smith’s analysis may not fully apply in postcolonial contexts, where colonialism operated differently than in settler-colonial states like the U.S. and Canada.

5. Essentialization of Identities

• Some scholars argue that categorizing entire racial groups within separate pillars could lead to essentialism, reinforcing fixed identities rather than recognizing fluid and changing racial dynamics.
• For example, Arab, Latinx, and Asian people are placed within Orientalism/War, but many face economic exploitation (capitalism) or displacement (colonialism) just as much as other groups.

6. Insufficient Engagement with Gender and Queer Theory

• While Smith critiques heteropatriarchy, some queer and feminist theorists argue she does not go far enough in exploring gender fluidity, trans identities, and intersectional feminism.
• Her work does not fully engage with queer of color critique, which examines how white supremacy intersects with sexuality and gender beyond heteronormativity.

7. Potential for Strategic Division Instead of Solidarity

• Some activists worry that dividing racial oppression into distinct pillars could encourage division rather than solidarity among communities of color.
• Instead of focusing on how white supremacy pits marginalized groups against each other, critics argue she should place more emphasis on coalitional politics and collective resistance.

8. Limited Historical and Theoretical Engagement

• Smith’s work is largely based on contemporary U.S. racial politics and does not engage deeply with historical or international theories of white supremacy.
• Some scholars argue that critical race theory, Black radical thought, and Indigenous studies offer more nuanced and historically grounded analyses of race and power.