A lot of folks have taken issue with the post below about excuse-making. Let me posit something a little different. Allow me the liberty of generalizing here--whites are most concerned about racial bigotry. That is, "I don't believe in interracial marriage" or "I don't want black people living next to me" or even "I think black people are prone to crime."
Black folks don't like racial bigotry, but they're mostly concerned--not about racism as bigotry--but racism as oppression. That's a loaded word, I know. But let's go to the dictionary--" an unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power." I think job discrimination falls under that category. I think redlining falls under that category. I'd hesitate to call the drug war "racial oppression," but with that definition, I think there is a case. So, as I've mentioned in comments, blacks aren't so much worried about whether white people like them, they're worried about the fact that in New York City, their job prospects are about the same as white guy with a record. In that world you can have a guy who isn't a racist bigot--but in fact is a racist oppressor. It may be "racism without racists" but it's still "racism with racist oppressors." Frankly, that terrifies me.
From a black perspective, the intent of white people is irrelevant--the effects are what matter. Thus we fear--I fear--this perverse self-congratulation over the fact that "racism as racial bigotry" has been banished, while "racism as racial oppression" lingers. I don't much care about Obama and white racism because he won't suffer any racial oppression. Heh, one could argue that white racists who vote against him could be contributing to the oppression of themselves.The "racial bigotry" fight is weird because, truthfully, only white people themselves can truly answer that question. It has to do with what's in a man's heart. But the question of racial oppression is much clearer. Certainly there's much much less of it today than there was a half a century ago. But it's still a big problem.
One final thing: I'd ask that you guys bear with me. I'm thinking out loud here. All of you made some good points in the comments thread below. I'm trying to incorporate, recast, rethink and respond.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The distinction between racial attitudes and racial oppression is useful. It is, indeed, oppression that is of the greatest consequence for black people. But the distinction also clarifies how you get racism without racists. Because people do not recognize or acknowledge their prejudices, they are prone to acting in ways that produce oppression without consciously bearing any ill will toward people of color.
Please fix: "they're job prospects" should be "their job prospects".
Great post. You have cleared it up for me with the simple statement, "...the intent of white people is irrelevant--the effects are what matter." It is not whether I (or others) consider myself a racist or non-racist but more important are my actions and how they affect others.
Yup, I think you're exactly right. Structural racism is what matters, not so much attitudes, which mostly act as a smokescreen, because "of course I'm no David Duke," etc.
I've been a believer in the division you mention here for a while now, and I'm glad to see someone talk about it with a good platform. I remember as a young man being strongly against the idea of any sort of 'collective responsibility' as a white man for racism and the effects of slavery: I figured I wasn't racist, so I bore no guilt. It was only later on that I realized that the systemic effects of racism don't rely on personal animus: I benefit from racism because I'm white, like it or not. Basically, I'm convinced that the best way to deal with systemic racism is to separate it totally from bigotry: hate whoever the fuck you want, but you can't let that bleed into your professional life under penalty of law. Let the bigots know that their minds, as malformed as they are, are their own. Legal, political, and social equality don;t need saints, just good laws.
I think another way of framing the point you're trying to make is one of systemic, structural racism in our social, political, and cultural institutions vs. racism as a personal failing.
I don't think it makes much difference if someone is willing to live next door to a black person but continues to deny the historical reality of how racism has been embedded into public policy.
The history of housing, to name just one example, is instructive in this regard.
Speaking from the perspective of a semi-white person, I thought your earlier post was completely justified. I feel that the elimination of overt racism has primarily been to the benefit of guilt-ridden white who need help getting to sleep at night. I personally won't start sleeping better until we've put on end to the blindingly wrongheaded and ineffectual War On Drugs that has put huge swaths of black youth in prison with little to no effect on actual crime.
Another way of getting at the difference is that both whites and blacks respond to racial discrimination when they feel it. But blacks feel racial discrimination when they are disadvantaged by it and when they see it, the former being the more serious for them.
Whites experience racial discrimination only when they see it. People don't feel positive discrimination when they got a job they feel they deserve because just because equally deserving black candidates lost out. So the only time whites are likely to experience discrimination is when it is overt.
That's where it gets really hard, though. If you ever did a poll that said, "Is it okay to be a racist?" you'd probably get about a 95% "no" answer from whites. It wouldn't be because they're lying, either. People in general think that a racist is a really, really bad thing to be. People consciously believe that we ought to treat people based on their actions, not based on their skin color.
But what happens when treating somebody of a different color differently, happens below the conscious level? I've heard about quite a few scientific experiments where they've found something like that. Thing is, everybody wants to believe that they're basically good. So they don't attribute any difference in results to something "bad" within themselves. So when you tell somebody that the actions they've taken - which to their conscious minds were in perfectly good faith - are racist, it's not just pointing out a fact. It's accusing them of being something they find abhorrent. The person knows what they really (consciously) believe, so who are you to tell them what their motivation is? So, you get both the resistance to the notion of racism as anything other than a conscious belief that one race is inferior to another, as well as them wanting to shoot the messenger about continuing inequality.
I wish I knew a way out of that trap.
TNC,
This is precisely correct. Run of the mill, subconscious, nebulous, questionable racism is different from violations of the Civil Rights Act or the Equal Protection clause which form a cause of action. In truth, only causes of action should be noted to be racism. The rest is just prejudice and ignorance.
When i was younger i used to be fond of saying that white guilt never did anything for me. (as an Indian man - and I didn't mean that it applied to black people and not me, since that wasn't exactly the case. more like, it was sort of irrelevant, especially to the modern situation in America. like people feeling bad about their "carbon footprint" but not really doing or being able to do much about it practically.) I think I was trying to express what Coates is doing a better job of expressing here.
I'm glad that you focus on intent v. effect. Just a side note, that is a huge problem in race jurisprudence since the Supreme Court decided that racial effects don't matter even if they can proven by overwhelming statistical evidence (see the landmark-in-a-bad-way case called Mcklesky v. Kemp, about the racial disparities in Georgia's death penalty). This legal principle has stood for many many years now and seems to be the result of a court that looks at what you call bigotry as opposed to oppression.
What your talking about here is the difference between personal racism and institutional racism. Public pressures have gone tremendously far in halting the former, but there are pillars in society that don't counteract institutional racism, mainly because them and their ilk profit and prosper from it. Taking care of your own as they say.
I just read through all the comments in this thread & the last, and, wow, I'm thinking the disconnect might be largely due to the fact that you seem to think that white people read about subconscious racism and studies like this & think that it is somehow OK -- or that it it is somehow an "excuse" or that it's something worthy of "self-congratulation." (On the last point, in particular, huh?) It's not. As a white person, when I read a study like that, it says to me: "Even people who THINK they are pure of heart and making decisions based on objective criteria (like me) -- you know, often they aren't. And maybe that includes me." So, while white (and other) people think that they're being fair when they're evaluating a job application, maybe, just maybe, they're not. But how is that "excusing" them? or us? or anyone? It's meant, I think, to challenge those people -- all of us (because, again, I don't think this is just a white issue) -- to look inward/examine our own perceptions, assumptions, motivations, etc. No one is giving anyone a "pass" here. I would guess that most white people don't think they're racist or making race-based decisions. This study is for them.
So, that said, what does it mean to say "I don't care if white people like me, I just care if they don't give me a job"? I mean, I guess I understand what that means: "Look, white people, I don't need your social approval to feel good about myself, but you better d*mn well not affect my economic situation." If that's kind of what you're saying, I get it, but frankly that's largely going to miss the point and be a dead end approach -- well, as long as you are confronted with white people in positions of power. Because most of the same attitudes that go into deciding whether to invite someone to dinner also influence which person -- out of a group of candidates -- you're going to decide to hire. Guess what, given their druthers, people hire people they "like." And the whole point of an attitude being "subconscious" is that -- again, not to belabor the point -- is that unless it is examined & confronted, it won't be rectified.
Better post, I think some clarification was necessary after the initial one. Nice job, you definitely nailed it.
Excellent discussion, and you are on target about overt racism vs. the oppression that is just built into the system [and personal reactions], and goes overlooked.
The continuing history of oppression needs to be discussed and addressed. I was happy to see B mention McKlesky v. Kemp -- we know there is systemic bias, but unless someone can prove that overt racism caused a result in a particular case, that person is shit out of luck.
An African-American professional in the South once told me she liked the South better than when she lived in the North, because at least the racism was on the table and out in the open. This was 20+ years ago, and I'm sure everyone has learned to talk the talk better by now. But equally sure that the legacy of racial injustice has not gone away.
There are at least three components to racism, it seems to me. There's the overt, Bull Connor stuff. There's the subconscious, "comfort zone" stuff. And there's the structural stuff. Each needs to be understood for what it is, and tackled in a different way.
One thing about whites and the latter two categories: A lot of them just don't realize they exist, and as Lynn says, studies like the one Kristof discusses can be a wake-up call for such folks.
Essentially you are talking about racism vs. white supremacy. Or racism vs. institutional racism. I'm with you completely because even using the words "white supremacy" are scary because it connotes something that most white supremacists are not: that is, KKK members. Well done.
Sorry, don't have time to read the initial post, or the deluge of comments. But what I don't get is why this is so hard:
Structural racism is the problem -- not what white people think of black people. Who gives a flying damn?
Three hundred years of racist oppression and indoctrination simply do not disappear overnight; it goes into the structure of the system, and continues to manifest regardless of the good-will or good intentions of the people involved. We have all been indoctrinated, more or less, (even black folks, it's called internalized racism) and we must all work individually to root that crap out of our heads but regardless of whether we do or not, racial injustice will continue to exist IN THE SYSTEM (judicial system, housing, education, health care) until such inequities are directly and specifically addressed.
If everybody gets off the defensive and gets to work, it'll get done a lot faster.
Speaking as a young white guy, I feel like the big problem here is one of self-awareness. With the addition of a little bit of reflection, a non-racist racist can become a plain non-racist.
Thinking about the original study, if I took it I just know that if I picked the white guy (presumably due to my subconscious biases) I would immediately wonder if it weren't some kind of racism at work. "Did I just not pick that guy because he was black?" I'd wonder. And just maybe I'd go back and reevaluate my choice.
Or to take a less hypothetical situation: I'm considering who I'll vote for in my state's gubernatorial race right now. A man is running against the incumbent female governor. I read the challenger's website and decided, "hey I think I'm gonna vote for this guy." But then I remembered: I voted against Hillary when she ran for Senator the first time. I voted against her in the primaries this year. Do I just happen not to like Hillary and this woman governor, or am I being a sexist?
So I made a stronger effort to read about the governor's stances and arguments and accomplishments and I'm doing my best to make a decision not based on gender. I think I may still vote for the guy, since of course I can't vote for her *just* because she's a woman either, but I feel more confident that I'm not being a sexist when I do so.
I think you concede to much here. Racial oppression doesn't just happen: it proceeds from some disrespect, devaluing, or animosity towards someone because of their race on the part of another person. As your definition says, oppression isn't just any old exercise of power, but an 'unjust or cruel' one. There is no such thing as unintentional injustice or cruelty, so intent really does matter. This is true of all of the examples of oppression you mention.
In your earlier post, you pointed out that people lie a lot. This, I think, is an important analytical insight.
The oppression includes the fact that you have to say the same thing twice to be heard once.
TNC,
It's a fascinating post; thanks for having the courage to think out loud on your blog, and for inviting us into the conversation.
Let me pose a simple question: is racial oppression manifest in inequality of outcome, or only in inequality of opportunity?
I'd suggest that it's a key distinction, and I'd like to see you grapple with it explicitly. I also happen to think it accounts for much of the yawning chasm between perceptions of racism among whites and blacks. White people tend to think that allocating jobs, say, on the basis of a civil service exam is just; but if not a single black applicant were to score high enough on the exam to qualify, most members of the black community would see that as unjust. (That's not a theoretical example - there's been contentious litigation involving a series of fire departments on precisely this basis.) As you point out, the white people just want to know that race wasn't an explicit criterion in the selection. The problem is that seemingly objective factors can have disparate impacts because of structural inequalities like education, financial resources, etc. Or, to use a classic formulation, it's the difference between "color-blind" and "diverse."
When you write about racial oppression, which of these standards do you have in mind?
Ta-Nehisi,
Great post; great explanation.
I really enjoy your blog. It's honest, thoughtful and humane - both rarities in the on-line world.
So the thoughts being thought have improved, but the actions being acted need work; I can see where that would seem unfinished.
There was a liberal critique of "tolerance" as weak soup, which irritated me: tolerance is legislatable and enforceable; warmhearted acceptance of everybody is not.
One thing that might be a barrier to communication here ... what "structural" or "systemic" racism mean, as opposed to "personal" racism. When I (as a well-meaning white guy) hear the words "systemic racism" it sounds like something being written into law or public policy that a rule does not apply to all groups equally - that is, a law treats one race differently from another.
That impersonal law (unlike the people that create it, interpret it, or execute it) isn't and can't be racist. If a law were to explicitly treat people differently, it would immediately be judged unconstitutional. I'd think that a lot of white people tune out at that point - it sounds like the person saying the words "systemic racism" is arguing about something that really is no longer a problem. That's one lasting victory the Civil Rights movement has brought us.
Most of the time, though, the people saying words like that aren't talking about the impersonal system of law at all. They're talking about a specific law that's crafted to disproportionally affect one section of the population (even though all sections have to obey it equally). Or they're talking about a specific case in the judicial system where a person treated cases differently because of color (even if the judge believed they weren't being racist in the sentencing). Or they're talking about a cop who gives you just a little bit longer of a stare (whether or not you're actually doing anything suspicious).
Yeah, they're talking about a game that's almost as rigged as official legal discrimitation. But I don't see that as a problem with "the system" as much as a failure of awareness on the part of the people within the system. In that sense, I really don't know how you can separate issues of systemic racism from personal racism. *That* kind of systemic racism won't ever go away until personal racism does.
Cynic,
Thanks--and my standard is really oppurtunity. Conservatives often try do comparisons by income--like well if we take a black child and white child of similar income, the race gap still persists. But one of the things folks like Dalton Conley make clear is that such comparisons don't account for the ultimate problem--the wealth gap. That really is the legacy of racial oppression.
That's where you see the effect of redlining, of job discrimination of unions discriminating, of the convict-lease system, of debt peonage. And the cold part about it is that it's the sort of oppressions that--much like wealth--endures. It doesn't go away just because people decide that they now want black people living next door. It's a built-in systemic disadvantage--and to some extent it's ongoing. Check out the NYC study, I linked. Think about the effects of drug policy on black wealth.
In the face of an ancient curse like the wealth gap, a lot of us lose our cool when racism is reduced to whether your willing to have black people over for dinner. We never really cared about that. We want the right to compete on a equal playing field. If we can get that, than we can compete for respect. The social stuff comes after that.
This dichotomy isn't new to you; on the legal end, there's all sorts of debate over whether the equal protection clause should be read to bar just discrimination or stuff that has disproportionate impact on minorities as well. (The 'just discrimination' camp won pretty decisively, except in the area of voting rights, where an effects test, rather than an intent test, is used to judge if districting schemes improperly 'dilute' the minority vote. Sounds esoteric, but it's actually hugely important in terms of how much minority representation you see in Congress, state legislatures, or even local government.)
And I'd be very interested to know how you would actually address the wealth gap.
I enjoy your blog and seeing you on bloggingheads, Ta-Nehisi.
As a white boy, I feel I should report that often when I come upon blog posts that have the word "racist" multiple times in them, I start to feel all weird, and I think "Here's something about how I deserve to kill myself." It has nothing to do with the post itself--rather, it carries the baggage of all the various posts I've read in the past that had that word in them, often written by people with less intelligent motivations than yours (and frankly most often by white people).
Sometimes this makes people defensive. The R-word (ha) has a lot of history, because when white people want to hurt each other's feelings, that's what they yell at each other.
Apart from this issue, I agree totally that there is structural racism in America. Biggest problem. A lot of people in their 30s-40s live with the cognitive dissonance of both loving their racist grandparents and trying to make sure they aren't the same way. I'm sure both black and white people have that to deal with.
This is an interesting thesis to build on, Mr. Coates. It's essentially the racially-tinged version of pragmatism versus idealism. Under your narrative whites are the idealists, concerned with the motivations and intentions, where blacks (and presumably other minorities) are the pragmatists, where motives are mitigating factors but effects are primary.
McCleskey v. Kemp, (1987), referenced above, is pretty cold:
“The Baldus study is actually two sophisticated statistical studies that examine over 2,000 murder cases that occurred in Georgia during the 1970's. The raw numbers collected by Professor Baldus indicate that defendants charged with killing white persons received the death penalty in 11% of the cases, but defendants charged with killing blacks received the death penalty in only 1% of the cases. The raw numbers also indicate a reverse racial disparity according to the race of the defendant: 4% of the black defendants received the death penalty, as opposed to 7% of the white defendants. …
“[W]e lawfully may presume that McCleskey's death sentence was not ‘wantonly and freakishly’ imposed, and thus that the sentence is not disproportionate within any recognized meaning under the Eighth Amendment. …
“At most, the Baldus study indicates a discrepancy that appears to correlate with race. … we hold that the Baldus study does not demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias affecting the Georgia capital sentencing process.”
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/mccleskey.html
You're right. I don't care if you are racist as long as I can support my family and my community.
I think its a huge design flaw in this experiment called America. Let's say for the sake of argument there was no slavery to give whites a 200 year head start in accumulating wealth in a competitive economic system. People are going to self-segregate anyway. Its just human nature. They always find something. If its not race, its religion or ethnicity or class or tribe or coast or block. The trick is to keep the market fair so that everyone has a place to make a living.
"like well if we take a black child and white child of similar income, the race gap still persists."
My daughters are the sixth generation of women in my family to go to college.
That's privilege that's built into our world.
It's privilege that that we can't renounce and no law can redistribute.
Best we can do is admit we didn't earn it, get to work on seeing if we can clean up part of the mess, and remember not to chatter too much about how hard we're trying and how much we care.
Thanks for this post, ta-nahisi, and in general for your sharp writing. I'll gladly bear with you while you think out loud and I hope you reciprocate for this amateur.
Because I wanted to tell you that while this latter post explains the content of your previous one, it doesn't seem to address its tone. Granted, self-conscious "racists" are distinct from "racist oppressors," and the latter are generally more pernicious than the former. But, I don't see why Kristof's using his space to point that out amounts to excuse-making.
This last post of yours suggests you should reserve your anger for the people most culpable of oppression. I suppose in a democracy everyone's party to the conspiracy of structural racism. But, I think you'd agree that certain folks -- elites, let's call them -- have greater access to the levers of power that create those effects of oppression: company heads decide who gets the job, union bosses set the rules for union membership, lenders set the terms for borrowing. The group of elites is probably smaller than the group of run-a-day racists, and it certainly ain't equal to the group of "white people" in the USA. If we could keep our heads, and focus on the "oppressors," we could go all out in our criticism and enjoy the greatest success with it. Like you said, we can shrug at run-a-day racists -- and, for all we know, these are the folks Kristof cites in his column -- because they're not usually in a position to oppress.
Are or they? Did the mask slip a bit in your first post? It seems to collapse some of the distinctions you set out here. They're written in different registers and you gotta forgive someone for thinking that they're dissonant. At least, I'm not sure how to resolve 'em. What d'you think?
What Brooklynite said. The subconscious and structural problems are simply not things that many white folks think about much, unless they hear about the issues, choose to recognize them, and then struggle with them.
The hardest thing for whites like me to grapple with, I think, is that there is a built-in white advantage. Most white people's first reaction is, "I faced struggles to get where I am. My family did, too. Nobody cut me breaks."
But the hard truth of the matter is, I've gotten breaks that others have not. Every single male African-American professional I know has been stopped for DWB, for example. No exceptions. I can walk into almost anyplace without much scrutiny, and that is not true for a lot of my friends and colleagues. When my kid went through a rough patch and had some police contacts, he was escorted home, or I was called, or the police took him to the ER -- he was never charged, it was all about family support. If his skin was a bit darker, and/or if we'd lived in a different neighborhood, my kid would have been in the juvenile justice system, and his road to success would have been immeasurably harder.
This post is very good. And yet I find myself thinking, with John McWorther (I imagine), that this prevalent preoccupation with racism as oppression, while intellectually significant and politically legitimate (think of incarceration policies), is perhaps overexposed: it relegates to the margins other fundamental preoccupations that have a more direct bearing on the betterment of social conditions for minorities. Perhaps more importantly, it reinforces a somewhat pessimistic culture that makes it hard not to prefer to air grievances to actually challenging latent racism by working the extra mile to erase (at an individual or communal level) its pervasive effects.
Firstly, I just want to say that I think you've expressed the distinctions between racism as bigotry and racism as oppression very well.
I guess I just want to add that I see a correlation between this discussion and when, in the VP debate, both Biden and Palin stated they were for equal rights for gays, but not marriage. There was something about Palin saying she is "tolerant" that echoes in the race issue as well. That's how you get a white person saying they're for equal rights, but wouldn't vote for a black president. It is because, when you come down to it, these fools think they are "tolerant" of other races in the same way Palin thinks she is "tolerant" of gays. Which is a bullshit word that shouldn't be allowed in the same building as the term "equal rights." To tolerate is to practice forebearance, to endure something, to "put up with" something disturbing to one's psyche. And it should never, EVER be used in regard to sexual orientation or race.
I think the crux of this discussion is that you're saying that you're tolerant of racism as bigotry because the real focus needs to be on racism as oppression.
And THAT'S the kind of sentence in which the word "tolerant" is properly put to work. Take note, Sarah Palin.
"In the face of an ancient curse like the wealth gap, a lot of us lose our cool when racism is reduced to whether your willing to have black people over for dinner."
I was about to suggest that the term "racism" -- and all its modifiers -- be limited to states of mind. This, mainly for the sake of clarity in meaning (since the "ism" words connote so strongly attributes of thought and feeling), but also because it would go some way to turning down the heat and improving mutual comprehension (the latter follows from the former). For example, suppose an official makes admissions or hiring decisions totally uninfluenced by racial attitudes of any kind, conscious or unconscious. But suppose further that his decisions do nothing to ameliorate the legacy of racial inequality of opportunity, and so does nothing to fix this particular injustice. Maybe he uses non-racial criteria that, because of unequal opportunity, are harder for black people to achieve than white people, but this fact doesn't occur to him and it's not pointed out to him. I propose we do NOT call this official a racist of any stripe (racist oppressor, structural racist, whatever).
This sentence from TNC, however, leads me to think that he might disagree. Why? Because tagging something or someone as "racist" connotes a problem of great urgency and moment. And the example I just gave IS such a problem.
Still, I'd do away with "racism" as an attribute of anything except the mental. Problems having to do with race, but not with attitudes having to do with race, can be flagged in ways that communicate their seriousness without calling them this or that kind of "racism". Personally, I'd do that out of semantic fastidiousness alone, but since no one's going to buy that except my fellow linguistic nerds, I'd also do it because I think it would be more effective politically.
For me, this is similar to the homophobia vs. black homophobia discussion.
I don't care whether a person believes that being gay is good or bad. So I don't care whether the black community is slightly more or less homophobic than another community or the nation as a whole. (Granted, I may be lucky in that I don't have to care, since I can choose a more tolerant community - not everyone can.)
But I do care whether the government believes that being gay is bad and chooses to punish gay people, or chooses to ignore discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Because that does me - and everyone else - harm.
For whatever reason, however homophobic the black community is compared to any other, it's comparatively rare for black voters to choose a government that is itself anti-gay. The same cannot be said of white voters, who do tend to choose anti-gay governments, whatever tolerance they might express otherwise.
At best, they are like Sarah Palin, in the comparison Katai makes. They don't express anti-gay bigotry themselves, and don't want to be seen as homophobes . . . but still, their behavior produces "homophobia without homophobes."
Which is still homophobia.
DKE, so what you are saying is we should use racism for personal bigotry, and something like "prejudice" for institutional racism, correct?
sounds good to me, although you'll get accused of using a code word, which is the new "your racist"
I kind of get what DKE's saying. I don't think "prejudice" quite covers it either, since that also implies a state of mind (prejudice = pre-judging). And yeah, it is kind of pedantic, but it might be helpful to the conversation.
"To tolerate is to practice forebearance, to endure something, to "put up with" something disturbing to one's psyche. And it should never, EVER be used in regard to sexual orientation or race."
Sorry. Homosexuality is disturbing to some folks' psyches (including mine). The best you'll get from them, or me, is tolerance, which can include gay marriage. It's like religious tolerance. To a true believer, it's disturbing that some people practice what they take to be the wrong religion, but their beliefs and religious behavior are still tolerated and unchecked. And that's enough. It would be silly for, say, Muslims to ask Christians that they not only tolerate their beliefs and place no restrictions on their religious practice, but that they cease to think that they're going to Hell. Similarly, why what's going on in my psyche should matter to those who advocate for gay rights, I don't understand, so long as what's going on in my psyche stays there and doesn't turn into discriminatory law or discriminatory employment practices.
Tel, Here's what my fifth grade teacher Mr. Kirby told me. Someone asks you if you'd rather have a bowl of ice cream or a bowl of peas. You pick the ice cream. Therefore you are prejudiced against peas.
While racism explicitly involves race. Prejudice, by itself, doesn't involve race at all. It also doesn't exist in a vacuum. You have to be prejudiced against something. Racism just involves hatred of people not like you.
So if someone is prejudiced against hiring black people, then going up to that guy and saying "you're racist" isn't going to help. But saying don't be prejudiced in your hiring, or else you'll be reprimanded, well, that's a start.
Thanks for a great post. Thought this might be appropriate, even if a bit academmicky.
Ruthie Gilmore, a brilliant woman who teaches at USC: "Racism, specifically, is the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death." This is from her book, Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California.
The hardest thing for whites like me to grapple with, I think, is that there is a built-in white advantage. Most white people's first reaction is, "I faced struggles to get where I am. My family did, too. Nobody cut me breaks."
But the hard truth of the matter is, I've gotten breaks that others have not.
I think that's ultimately the key to breaking down systemic racism--having white people acknowledge, even though it might be difficult for us to see, just how much privilege we have as white people. It's hard for us to see because it's so ubiquitous that it's second nature. I'm almost positive that at some point, I've gotten a job that someone else as at least as qualified to do simply because I'm white. I can't point to the exact job, but I grew up in the rural south--the probability approaches one pretty quickly down there.
But I'm not wealthy by any stretch--I grew up in a trailer and wore hand-me-downs for a long time--so it would be easy to sneer and say "nobody ever gave me anything." Just because I've had to struggle at times, though, doesn't mean that I haven't benefited greatly from a system that favors me for my gender and race.
Isn't this the point of Jay Smooth's video on talking about racism? Focus not on what people are or what they think. Focus on actions.
"What they did" versus "what they are."
http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html
From a black perspective, the intent of white people is irrelevant--the effects are what matter. Thus we fear--I fear--this perverse self-congratulation over the fact that "racism as racial bigotry" has been banished, while "racism as racial oppression" lingers. I don't much care about Obama and white racism because he won't suffer any racial oppression. Heh, one could argue that white racists who vote against him could be contributing to the oppression of themselves.The "racial bigotry" fight is weird because, truthfully, only white people themselves can truly answer that question. It has to do with what's in a man's heart. But the question of racial oppression is much clearer.- from Oct. 6. How do questions about evil, bigotry, and oppression have real meaning apart from assumptions about God, ethics, spirituality, free will, personal responsibility, and personal identity? Are most human assumptions about God, free will, and personal identity actually wrong?
Consider the following 3 statements: “My religion is the one true religion.” “Because my religion is the one true religion, those who oppose my religion must be destroyed.” “My religion is the one true religion for me, but the religions of other people help me to find the truth within my own religion.” Is religion a spiritual boxing match?
I believe in the religion of Islam. I believe in Allah and peace.
I know I got it made while the masses of black people are catchin' hell, but as long as they ain't free, I ain't free.
It's the repetition of affirmations that leads to belief. And once that belief becomes a deep conviction, things begin to happen.
We have one life; it soon will be past; what we do for God is all that will last.
Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams - they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do - they all contain truths.
The man who has no imagination has no wings. – Muhammad Ali.
How can we communicate among each other except through religion, empathy, spiritual affirmations, ideas about God, Higher Power, or spirituality, and truths revealed by our own imaginations? What if our assumptions about God, free will, personal responsibility, and personal identity actually contradict empirical reality or reasonable empathy? “Free will” can merely mean chance. If it is not that, its advocates are at least incapable of saying what it is. –Francis Herbert Bradley
TNC:
Thanks for that reply. I share your concerns but I'd suggest a different way of categorizing the nature and impact of racial prejudice. To begin with, I think there are three ways that racist beliefs can be manifested.
Let's call the first racial bigotry. This, in your formulation, is centered around views that reify racial distinctions - an aversion to interracial marriage, distaste at enforced proximity, suspicion that others may be racially predisposed to crime. It is the classic expression of racism.
The second is what Kristof has termed racism without racists. Here, the actor outwardly professes racially-neutral views, but manifests in his behavior racist beliefs. So, for example, otherwise identical applicants are more or less likely to be awarded a job based upon their race, even as the person making the decision swears that race plays no role.
The third is what is sometimes termed institutional racism, but which might be more aptly described as institutional bias or systemic injustice. These, for example are the effects "of redlining, of job discrimination of unions discriminating, of the convict-lease system, of debt peonage." When these policies were enacted, they were a manifestation of racial bigotry, of explicitly held and publicly professed prejudices. But today, years after the formal policies have been repealed, these sorts of oppressions endure. That lasting effect is what I would term systemic injustice.
Here's why I think this matters. Racism requires an actor. It may be a conscious actor - a racial bigot - or an unconscious actor - a non-racist racist. But in either case, it involves an individual or a group committing an action on the basis of implicit or explicit racial beliefs. That's why it's an -ism, a belief system.
When the actor has vanished from the scene, the effects of his actions will linger. But labeling them racist is no longer terribly useful - the word, to the extent it now points to any actor at all, points to an absence. The point is not that someone believes something that's wrong, it's that the system itself, as it presently exists, is unjust. It can't be repaired by everyone agreeing to hold the proper views, the way racism can - no, it requires systemic change to undo the past impact of those views. That's why I would rather focus on the systemic injustice, a term that points directly at the nature of the present problem.
When you divide racism between oppression and bigotry, I think you set up a false opposition. Bigotry can lead to oppression - they're not opposites. But you've hit upon a critical distinction, nonetheless. Whether racist beliefs are held consciously or unconsciously, they can manifest themselves either in a manner that is largely symbolic or in one that has a concrete impact. Similarly, when their impact lingers beyond the original belief, that can have symbolic or concrete consequences. (The difference, say, between naming a college for an avowed racist and giving preferential admission to the children of alumni. The former has a symbolic impact even if the current trustees no longer share his views; the latter has a concrete impact, even if such an impact is not intended.)
So then there are three ways that racist beliefs can be manifest - consciously, unconsciously, or systemically - and two ways they can have an impact - symbolically or concretely. How does that schema work for you?
To Asher:
You said, "It's like religious tolerance. To a true believer, it's disturbing that some people practice what they take to be the wrong religion, but their beliefs and religious behavior are still tolerated and unchecked."
In turn, it is disturbing to my own psyche when people have a problem with homosexuality. I don't say this to start a fight or to try to say I'm right (though, obviously, I'm sure we both think we're right), but rather to try to illustrate why I said what I said. There is, I suppose, an inherent form of hyprocrisy in my inability to understand how a person can merely tolerate gays while also endorsing equal rights, because, I am, in turn, merely tolerating homophobia.
I guess the conclusion is that we are in agreement. You tolerate homosexuality and would accept gay marriage and I tolerate homophobia and wouldn't deny you a job based on your views.
Why is it that people are always trying to explain away racism? If you look at any definition of the word prejudice is invoked. If you or your actions are prejudiced then there is racism acting. Just because some Americans have tried to neuter the word and debase it of meaning is a real problem. When people try to argue that prejudice along racial lines isn't racism I call foul.
As a young black male I've found myself holding some unconscious prejudices against whites for perceived wrongs done to me or others. Guess what, that racism, and I called it such and have been able to deal with misplaced racial anxiety.
I demand the same burden of reality for everyone, even those of you who would like to believe that racial prejudice (even that to which you are sometimes unconsciously trafficking in) is not racism.
The question is whether racism is understood as a deviation from civility and politeness, or as a deviation from freedom and equality.
Thanks, Incertus. "So ubiquitous that it's second nature" sums it up.
The Pop View -- that fabulous video by Jay Smooth gets at *some* of it. It addresses how to talk and think [hopefully] on a personal level. Doesn't get to the big institutionalized level, but the starting point is person by person.
Why should a white person, such as myself, confront his own subliminal (or liminal) racist attitudes? That's at the core of any recipe for change?
I have two personal reasons. First is simple justice. I value justice. I want the world to be more just. And if you want to change the world, change yourself first. Become a more just person. I don't call that guilt.
Second, these attitudes are a form of disability. They diminish me. They make me make bad decisions, potentially. (I don't do a lot of hiring, but my favorite remodeling contractor is Mexican-American.)
When Branch Rickey put Jackie Robinson on the team, he told them that Jackie was a great player that was going to help them win a pennant. And he did.
I can well imagine a lot of black families that I would rather have as my neighbors than my actual neighbors, too. So again, racist attitudes have the potential of inflicting a personal cost on me.
I can't blame any person of color for anger about this. It would make me angry, you betcha. If you want to insist on calling everyone who has ever done something while under the influence of a bias a racist, that pretty much doesn't leave anyone out, as far as I can tell.
I don't think that the issue of bias is one that will ever by "solved", by the way. People will continue to be more favorably disposed toward, and more influenced by people that they perceive as being like them as long as the world keeps turning, I think.
I think the condition of blacks in America goes well beyond that, of course. The consequence of the above belief is that we need to build institutions that will continue on, and demonstrate the problem to generations to come.
90% of African Americans say they are voting for Obama because he is black.
What is wrong with European Americans (i.e. whites) voting for someone because he is white?
Blacks have the NAACP to promote their interests.
Mestizos have La Raza to promote their interests.
Asians have the 80-20 Initiative to promote their interests.
WHAT DO WHITES HAVE?
Re: It would be silly for, say, Muslims to ask Christians that they not only tolerate their beliefs and place no restrictions on their religious practice, but that they cease to think that they're going to Hell.
I have no idea whether any individual Muslim is going to hell or not (though I don't think Osama bin Laden has been building a very good resume for a position in the heavenly choirs). Most Christians know (or should) that it is rather blasphemous to claim for themselves the right to dictate God's final judgment on anyone.
Burke:
Here's the thing. Those black people who support Barak, if they are not first-time voters, no doubt have voted for white candidates numerous times. They don't have to "prove" their lack of prejudice, racism, whatever, when it comes to voting.
Those whites who wouldn't vote for a black candidate, and therefore will always vote "white" (y'all know who you are!), they've pretty much proved their racism to me.
It's not who you vote for, its who you won't vote for.
"What do whites have?"
You're shitting me, right?
I work in the public school system in Hartford CT.
I ride the buses to and from work. I live in the neighboring town with a better tax base, higher real estate values, less crime, fewer shootings, more resources, less poverty, better schools with better teacher salaries and better scores and higher graduation rates. When folks hear I work in Hartford all I get is,'wow, that must be hard' or, 'it's good that you do that'. I hear racism in these responses. I see and feel the racism of fellow teachers. They are too critical to blame parents. There is an over all lack of empathy and grace and thoughtfulness about difference and seperation and equity. Too many teachers decide these students don't need recess because the test scores are low. The school and district look the other way and lets teachers decise this individually. the town I live in would never take recess away. The town I live in would never believe the argument for school uniforms. The teachers who believe in uniforms for Hartford children do not advocate for uniforms in thier own children's schools in nearby suburbs.
The attitudes that people posting here don't care about easily become the structural racism and classism between one town and another.
having relationships with people who are different than you is the only thing that helps us be less afraid, be less stupid, be more graceful and caring and just.
One beautiful essay I remember called the laws "an obliging shell" that gave a structure until the better angels of our nature finally start to function more fully. Not caring about whether who are a good enough person to invite gay or muslim or black folks over to your house OR whether you are a good enough person to be invited over to the house or temple or mosque or church or favorite restaurant of someone you work with lets us off the hook too easily.
What's disappointing to me in both this and the previous is the casual dismissal of the value of simple one on one interaction: "I don't care if you like me." or "It's not about who gets invited to tea."
Anyone watch "All Quite on the Western Front" recently?
Chaz,
That's what I am talking about. Not being overly ashamed to admit that you, too, suffer at times from the very human irrationality that is racism. How else can any of us, regardless of the amorphous construct that is our race, confront and deal with it? Confront irrationality with rationality.
Burke,
I responded in the other thread but that seems dead now. I can appreciate the feeling some white people may get that they alone aren't encouraged to celebrate the great history (histories) of their ethnicity, something I think they should do, but I think the idea that they do not do so abundantly and are somehow prevented by some postmodern cultural elite is, well, simply not accurate. It sounds different because we're so immersed in white culture - and I'm not claiming that that is in and of itself so awful, since after all whites have been the majority in America since its inception - that we don't call it out as "white culture" because whenever we're talking about almost anything, it's assumed that "white" is the default.
Keep in mind too that European-American civilization as you call it has as one of its greatest assets, perhaps the one that has most allowed the success of the race (of course this is open to debate), its ability to absorb outside influences. Arabic numerals to Chinese explosive(gun) powder to Native American farming and tracking to African-American music and a thousand other things from these and other groups. I'm not one of you, and I admire your race for it. I think this indicates that whites have nothing to fear from others in this colony that's become a superpower. If it isn't obvious, groups like the NAACP exist in order to get their people a foothold in what has for so long been a uniform structure of European-American government and society. Surely you must see that.
I apologize if I'm rehashing someone else's comment here; I'm responding to the post itself without having read the whole thread (which I usually try to avoid doing, but I'm in a hurry).
I agree that racist oppression is far more important than racist bigotry. I think the salient point with respect to the original post, though, is that lots of white people who are racist aren't racist on purpose. They are racist because they have been raised in a racist culture and absorbed its assumptions.
Racism is, in this sense, ideological in nature; it is a consequence of the way we interpret the world. I don't mean this to be an excuse for racism, but I think if we want to effectively combat racist oppression we need to reach an accurate understanding of how racism is maintained and reproduced. I would argue that only a small minority of people actively try to preserve racist attitudes; that's part of what makes those attitudes so hard to combat.
I'll agree that focusing discourse about racism on bigotry instead of on oppression misses the most important target. Ideally, we'd give almost no attention to bigotry and lots of attention to oppression. Unfortunately, people are motivated to monitor and change their own actions by morality -- not by sociology, cultural studies, or economic theory. "Racist oppression" is a real phenomenon that has a lot of moving parts, and you have to both smart and motivated just to understand it, let alone see how to fix it.
On the other hand, most white people (I say, being one myself) don't want to be bigots because in most places bigotry has social costs. The connection between behavior and consequences is short and intuitive; we are rewarded for not being bigots. Until our understanding of the mechanisms of racial oppression becomes as commonplace as our awareness of racial bigotry, most white people are not going to (be able to) change our thoughts and behaviors in ways that will help solve the American culture's most important problems with race.
In other words, it's a big problem that needs some fixin', and we've got some educatin' to do to fix it.
KCLuce,
Well, I, as a European American (i.e. white person), would prefer to vote for another white person.
I really don't see any problem with people supporting candidates of their own tribe. It's perfectly natural. We shouldn't hate people of different races, but we should also prefer our own. Race is extended family.
(BTW, I'm not voting for the traitor John McCain. I'm voting third party or write in.)
WHAT DO WHITES HAVE?
Pretty much everything, even down to the history. Look at any history book that's used to teach US students at nearly any grade level and it's white-centric. So are most classes in the humanities, at least until you get to the last couple hundred years, when some variety comes in. The whole United States is white-centric--we white up the ethnic stuff that we appropriate from people of color, from any minority to be quite honest.
I think Chris Rock put it best in his latest special, though, when he was talking about how white people aren't allowed to use the n-word. He said something like "white people complain because they're not allowed to say n****r. 'It's not fair,' they whine. 'Black people get to use it all the time.' Well, last time I checked, that was the only advantage I had to being black. I'll tell you what--you can use n****r if I can raise interest rates."
So, as I've mentioned in comments, blacks aren't so much worried about whether white people like them, they're worried about the fact that in New York City, their job prospects are about the same as white guy with a record. In that world you can have a guy who isn't a racist bigot--but in fact is a racist oppressor. It may be "racism without racists" but it's still "racism with racist oppressors." -from Oct 6 ’08. “Racism without racists” in a social structure built upon a racist legacy is a valuable insight. There might be considerable cruelty and injustice resulting from traditional or statistical trends of “racism with racist oppressors” who might not be racist bigots..
“Hating people because of their color is wrong. And it doesn't matter which color does the hating. It's just plain wrong.” – Muhammad Ali. Hate and love of specific entities according to specific belief systems allow ethical and spiritual judgments. But unless “God” or some absolute standard can validate the specific belief system, are we not in ethical and spiritual limbo? Let assume that miracles, immortal souls, and supernatural entities are total nonsense in terms of physics and chemistry. What should the atheist make of the following poetic couplet? “We have one life; it soon will be past; what we do for God is all that will last.” -Muhammad Ali. If “God” is the spiritual essence of the human experience, then we seem to find emotional and spiritual meaning in Ali’s insight. However, Ali’s insight has profoundly different meanings for the atheist versus the traditional monotheist. “God” and “racism” appear to have vastly different meanings to seemingly sane individuals. What can science teach us about spirituality, race prejudice, and other common patterns of electromagnetic energy found in human brains? Are any prejudices, thoughts, or emotions freely chosen by anyone? Is free will a false hypothesis according to molecular neuroscience?
Francis Crick’s book “What Mad Pursuit” explains some of the basic ideas of skepticism in molecular biology. Any biological hypothesis which is unproven at the molecular level is likely to be wrong or highly suspect. The scientist should remain ultra-skeptical except with incontrovertible evidence. You should attempt to scientifically analyze all reasonable alternate hypotheses that contradict your own wonderful hypothesis. That which many American citizens call “racism” might perhaps be divided up into 9 overlapping categories: 1. subconscious race prejudice; 2. conscious race prejudice viewed as a spiritual failing; 3. conscious race prejudice not viewed as any kind of failing; 4. racism on automatic pilot (i.e., a legacy racist social structure); 5. racism; 6. racist chauvinist ideology; 7. racist supremacist ideology; 8. racist genocidal ideology; 9. racist genocidal ideology viewed as a spiritual virtue. Would it seem to be a mistake to lump category 1 and category 9 together? Examples of categories 6,7,8, and 9 might be Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, and Heinrich Himmler, respectively. Is it really useful to draw no distinctions between the various racisms of TR, WW, AJ, and HH? Napoleon Bonaparte remarked that he was in favor of whites more than blacks because he was white and if his color were reversed then his political attitude would be reversed. Was there a huge difference between the racism of Bonaparte and the racism of Hitler? Could degrees of prejudice in race, ethnicity, class, culture, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and creed be usefully divided up into, say, 5 to 10 categories each? The analyses of racism, spirituality, hate, and love might be empirical technicalities similar to assigning numbers to hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes.
Do people freely choose to be nice or nasty, to be sane or insane, to be knowledgeable or ignorant, or to be intelligent or stupid? Chris Rock said, “You should be nice even to the people who are idiots to you.” However, Nat Turner, Stonewall Jackson, John Brown, and John Wilkes Booth did not gain fame by playing Mr. Nice Guy. Why should people follow any particular ethical or spiritual code? Do people freely chose to think and to act, or do the laws of physics and chemistry create pattern of human thought and behavior according to mixtures of circumstance, causality, and chance?
Burke:
Tribal politics are incompatable with multi-national "nation-states," which the United States happens to be. If your political ideal is Iraq, then, yes, tribal politics should be your thing. But no type of political affiliation is "natural."
Race is extended family? Take a look around. Cross-racial, -ethnic, -national breeding is one of the few human universals. (Beer is another.)
Wherever I post, I like to keep myself to a two-post limit. If you want the last word, have at it.
RCLuce,
The very world nation, from the Latin nascere, implies link by blood.
Tribalism is basic to man, and there is nothing wrong with European Americans (whites) preferring the welfare of their own kind.
True, there is some race mixing, but the products of miscegenation will almost always identify with the darker race, since they will look more like the darker race. As Jesse Jackson said, whites have "recessive genes," and the kids will look black.
Nevertheless, there will also remain an aristocracy, those who are of pure European blood.
Don't get me wrong. I do not dislike other races. I wish them the best. But I want the same privileges for whites.
As I say above, African Americans have the NAACP to promote their interests.
Mestizos have La Raza to promote their interests.
Asians have the 80-20 Initiative to promote their interests.
WHAT DO EUROPEAN AMERICANS HAVE?
"WHAT DO EUROPEAN AMERICANS HAVE?"
Money, power & respect. It's the key to life.
Edmund,
If you're not going to respond when people answer your questions, then what's the point of posting them in the first place?
Ta-Nehisi: "Conservatives often try do comparisons by income--like well if we take a black child and white child of similar income, the race gap still persists. But one of the things folks like Dalton Conley make clear is that such comparisons don't account for the ultimate problem--the wealth gap. That really is the legacy of racial oppression."
Could you explain what the wealth gap is, and perhaps what testable predictions such a theory makes?
I'm also curious: has anyone attempted to do comparisons holding that constant as well?
foo
edmund burke is a troll.
this is what happens when people hide behind a lie. i you believe something, have the courage to put your name on it.
edmund burke is a coward.
"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.
Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation."
Cynic,
I think restricting the term "racism" to the description of "racial bigotry" is a big mistake. "Racism" and "racist" are big, bad, emotionally laden, powerful words. Why give up on that source of power?
"Systemic injustice" is accurate, but too neutral to accomplish any political work. Fighting race-based systemic injustice means changing people's behavior. That means educating people about the racist nature of the injustice so they are motivated to combat it. For example, we need to repeatedly explain what redlining is and why it is wrong because it is racist. "Systemic injustice" is too clinical to motivate people; "racist oppression" is not.
The adjective "racist" does not describe only individuals; it can also describe cultures, institutions, and beliefs that many people participate in or share. Individual people can (and many do) police themselves for racist bigotry, but they also need to police themselves for participation in those larger racist structures (and not enough of us do). We should not separate "racism" from our descriptions of thos institutions; we should energetically point out the racism of those institutions. We should not excuse people for taking part in institutional racism; we should help them see that they are unknowingly taking part--so that they can know, and stop.
Yes, I know there are other kinds of institutional injustice that are not race-based, and those problems need to be addressed, too. But they should be recognized and addressed individually, rather than lumped together as one big problem of "systemic injustice," because the actual mechanisms of oppression are different in each case, and the sweeping changes required to "correct" multiple kinds of systemic injustice in one swell foop would likely bring more harm than benefit (just ask Marx and Engels). Besides, I believe that confronting and beginning to correct systemic racist oppression would actually make it easier to address other kinds of injustice as well, because more people would both learn the critical skills necessary to understanding these problems, and develop the motivation to fight them.
FearItself
I think you're conflating two discrete phenomena: the institutional manifestations of racial bigotry, and their legacy.
Redlining, actually, offers a perfect illustration of this distinction. In the 1930s, HOLC drew up 239 residential security maps, in which "Type D" neighborhoods were outlined in red. Many of those neighborhoods were identified using non-financial factors, including race. This and other FHA and private-sector policies had devastating consequences, promoting racial segregation, restricting blacks to the decaying cores of industrial inner-cities as jobs moved out to the suburbs, and preventing the accumulation of wealth through real estate that helped fuel the post-war middle class boom. But let's be clear - these policies explicitly considered the racial composition of a neighborhood as a legitimate factor in assessing creditworthiness, and deemed black areas - by virtue of race - inferior risks. That's racism, pure and simple. It has actors - policymakers and bankers - and a belief system.
Redlining was outlawed by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The CRA went a step further, requiring lending practices to be equal in all communities. There's a fascinating literature about just how efficacious these two pieces of legislation were, and about how and why the black community continues to be denied equal access to credit today. But let's save that for another day. For now, let's just acknowledge that if you get caught using race as a factor, you'll get tried and convicted - racial bigotry in lending is now illegal, and even racism without racists can leave its practitioners liable.
But simply outlawing the practices didn't reset the clock. Black families which had been denied, for decades, the opportunity to accrue significant equity in their homes weren't handed checks as compensation. The largely dysfunctional inner-city neighborhoods that the policies had helped produce remained in place. Even for African Americans born long after the FHA and CRA were passed into law, the effects of earlier racist practices linger on. If you're twenty-five, black, and living in an inner-city neighborhood, good luck getting a prime-rate mortgage. You're unlikely to have established much of a credit history, even if there are no flaws on your record. Your extended family is unlikely to be able to stake you the cash for a down-payment. You're more likely to be shouldering student loans. If you move out to an area where housing is appreciated more rapidly, you're likely to cut yourself off from the social network that might otherwise have sustained you, and have difficulty building a new one in an area where few share your background, racial or otherwise.
That, I take it, is what TNC meant when he referenced the "wealth gap." Even if two individuals of different racial backgrounds hold the same assets on paper, they're embedded within networks of vastly different resources. And by that I mean financial (most entrepreneurs turn to friends and family members for start-up capital) experiential (it helps to know others who have faced similar decisions themselves) and social (it's always easier to succeed amidst other successful people - easier to conceive of risks, to take them, and to relish their rewards.) These sorts of systemic inequalities lack actors. If people in positions of power in this nation still gather in wood-paneled rooms, trying to figure out how to deprive people of opportunities on the basis of race, then they are the exceptions. Far more common are initiatives that have sought to undo the damage of the past, including the CRA. And yet, it's plainly not enough to guarantee equality of opportunity, much less to produce an equality of outcome.
So what do we call this sort of thing? To label it, as you do, racist oppression or a racist system is fundamentally misleading. It suggests that the problem that needs to be addressed is tied to racist beliefs. That simply isn't so. Even if we purged all racist beliefs, explicit and implicit, from our collective consciousness, we wouldn't take a single step forward to remedying these historic disparities. Let me strengthen that: the greatest obstacles to equality in America are not the product of current racial beliefs, but the legacy of earlier racist policies long-since repudiated.
That's why I would so much rather focus upon systemic injustice. The problem is that the system itself is producing unjust results. It's a term that focuses attention where it belongs - on the functioning and product of the system - rather than where it does not - on the motives and beliefs of its actors. Labeling everything as 'racist' may be cathartic, but it's a doubly unfortunate tactic. Not only does it distract from the true nature of the problems we confront, it also dilutes the charge when it's levied appropriately - against the beliefs, implicit and explicit, that many Americans continue to harbor.
"From a black perspective, the intent of white people is irrelevant--the effects are what matter. "
I agree that effects matter more than intentions.
But I've read Edmund Burke's 8:29 a.m. comment eight times now, and I'm pretty sure that his intent matters at least a bit.
That's evil you can taste and smell, consciously trying to divide us from our neighbors, our friends, and our families.
A point being made at TNR that might go in this thread: As McCain and Palin call Obama an unpatriotic traitor who is a danger to the nation, their audience members yell out "terrorist" and "kill him" at mention of Obama's name, and "Sit down boy" to black members of the press when it's time to deride the evil media. This ugliness isn't being confined to home or the bar amongst intimates--people feel it's fine to scream at a rally.
And McCain and Palin don't stop to say "wait, that's too far;" just blink and carry on. This is not some anonymous supporter on the internet, but someone in their audience, whom they and everyone else present can hear. This campaign just got much uglier.
foo
Excellent post. Damn good observation/analysis.
racism needs to stop Iam here in Berlin Wisconsin and there is nothing but racist RED NECKS and FARMERS here i read that they play mind games and there racist and turns it around and a respectful eay and makes it seem like your the one racist but it doesnt work and their trying their haedest to put me and my dad in prisin but they dont have any thing on us and thats what they hat the most