Freddie, now proudly with his own blog, has some cogent thoughts on working through racism in public in America.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Conceptually, Freddie's got a very good post there. Pretty much any time a topic is set aside as too hot to touch with anything less than an asbestos suit, animosity festers in the absence of dialogue.
But what can actually be done? When enough people have a pet grievance, the loudest and most intractable voices win out over the most reasonable, or at least try. So long as it is possible for even one person to shut down or at least severely harm the debate by dropping an 'R' bomb, a proper dialogue isn't possible.
Plain example: The AI post earlier this week regarding the alleged "cross burning". From your (MM's) own post and starting from the first post in the comments, there was a quick rush to judgment based on all of 300 words in a single newspaper article. What drove most of this? Stereotyped perceptions and outrage, by my count. Racism was certainly a distinct possibility in that event, but was by no means proven on the basis of the provided facts. And it was clear that half of the people commenting hadn't even bothered to read the article carefully, since there was blatant and repeated confusion over the timeline of events, with the assumptions falling in the way of assuming the evil racist interpretation.
It's nice to talk about doing something and IMO Freddie's post is a very good start (and thanks for linking to it), but if a long-time journalist (yourself) isn't even parsing news media resources carefully when "Racism!" is involved, it's going to be a long uphill road to a more general defused dialogue.
freddie - I just bookmarked you! Good Luck!
I look forward to harrasing you in the comments section :-)
Freddie's basically right, and I am puzzled by people who don't relate to others based on behavior instead of (perceived) mental state.
It's been decades, at least, since new parents were admonished to use phrasing like "you did a bad thing" instead of "you're a bad kid". Everyone I know agrees that this is the right way to 1) adjust a child's behavior, and 2) keep the relationship functioning well. There's no reason to expect an adult to react better to an accusation of *being* bad.
Also, what are we supposed to make of the whole concept of "what that (racist) person really thinks/believes inside"? Modulo the brain-scan tech Freddie mentions, it's always been impossible to know the real mental state and beliefs of another person. (I know that society functions sometimes as if this were not true, e.g. in the "mens rea" concept in criminal law, but I don't think that alters the thrust of this argument.) Do we really want a society that concerns itself with the purity of our internal mental states? That's been tried before (and still today, probably, in N Korea), and shall we say, found wanting.
Well, there's a whole problem in the "racism" argument, and that is to define racism. See, I'm a "racist" according to most definitions, because I don't think blacks and whites and asians and jews are the same. I believe that there are fundamental differences between the races.
And the problem is, that there are differences. It's been medically documented in some cases (sickle cell) and socially documented in others (black crime rates vs asian crime rates). That means, if I'm walking in the dark parking lot and I see either a black man or an asian man, everything else being equal I face a greater chance of being assaulted by the black man.
Now, yes, there are other factors which will sway my changes to a greater degree than the color of the random person's skin. Location, dress, temperament, other signs that are much larger factors than race, but that doesn't deter that race IS a factor that is considered.
All men (and women) were not created equal. Some were born being better at certain things than others.
And yes, I'm sure someone will come screaming that I'm a racist... and so what? See, the "racist bomb" works in favor of blacks rather than against them. It keeps us from discussing those differences which, given today's enviroment, are overall to the black person's disadvantage. Mind you, that does not imply in any way that black people are "inferior", just that other races have a better combination of above-average traits to fit the needs of current society. Were those "desired traits" to change, it's quite possible to enter a culture where asians or whites or jews are disadvantaged by their genetic predispositions. One example would be the history of Africa, where blacks became the way they are because that was the best answer for the enviroment.
I brought that up for another important point: we're only "equal" given a hypothetical enviroment that values all possible traits equally. The problem is, we're not. That's why races and genders aren't equal. We're more alike than we are different, but screwing with the machine (society) trying to get equal results given the unequal starting points is going to F up the system beyond repair.
everything else being equal I face a greater chance of being assaulted by the black man.
I don't want to put to sharp a spin on the matter because the relevant traits might not be visible, but it doesn' t actually mean that. There could be another trait, or set of traits, that explain all of the likelihood of being a criminal, and black men are simply more likely to exhibit such traits. Then, if everything else (including these traits) was equal, you'd stand no greater chance.
What you are saying is that, if these traits are not readily observable, then it is reasonable for you to react as if the relevant trait was mere skin color.
Close, but not quite. That skin color is an indicator of the likelihood of those traits. That a person, by being black, is more likely to have the traits that make a person a criminal than a the likelihood of a person with a different skin color.
Similar to how the likelihood of having sickle cell is greater in some races than in others. It's not that skin color is the trait, it's that skin color is indicative of the likelihood.
Now, the difference between sickle cell and criminal behavior is that there are external showings of criminal traits which are far more indicative than mere skin color. The black man in a suit and tie is demonstrating less risk than the asian woman with the colored mohawk, sneer, and assessing glance. That's why I have to indicate "everything else being equal" to make the comparison.
So, by greater chance, I mean that if out of 100 black men 6 are likely to have the traits vs out of 100 asian men 2 are likely to have the traits, I face a three times greater risk from any random black man... even though my overall chances are still small with either person.
Altho, when thinking of criminal behavior, the biggest indicator is YOU. Some people are much more likely to be victimized than others. Criminals smell fear, and react accordingly.
I think the best thing said, in modern times, about our racism was by Dwight D. Eisenhower who, when he sent America's praetorian guard, the 82nd Airborne, to enforce the Supreme Court's order in Little Rock said was 'the most important thing is a change in the hearts of men.' I believe his statement and view did lead many to a change of heart. With that, to borrow from the philsophy of AA, would be a 'walking the walk' of equality; it is too easy for 'the talk' to get hijacked and interfere with this. 'Confession' becomes like a Mao circle where there is not a change of heart but a personality domination.
The fact is that we all have racially-motivated preconceptions and biases, which we cannot control. I, like Bill Cosby and Jesse Jackson, do not feel the same way towards a black man walking down a dark alley towards me as I feel towards an Asian man. But here again existentialism is instructive. What matters is not how we think but how we act.
So, Freddie wants us to "overcome our biases" by acting in exactly the same fashion when we encounter a black man or an Asian woman.
That's exactly why the Columbia girl was raped -- because she "overcame her biases".
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/06/06/2008-06-06_columbia_student_testifies_in_rape_case_.html
Then 23, she said no alarm bells went off when she spotted the stranger in the elevator. She noticed he had a suitcase with rollers. But it was only after she got off - and heard the squeaking of the rollers - that she got nervous.
"I heard him a few steps behind me," she said. "I stepped in [my apartment], turned around, I started to close the door. He was right at the door facing me."
When Prunty asked her if she tried to fight back, the young woman said she did "in the beginning."
"I wanted to survive," she said. "So I did what he told me to."
The victim testified for only an hour and will return to the stand on Monday.
Prunty on Thursday gave the court a preview of the terrible testimony to come when she accused the ex-con of violating the young woman "in every way imaginable, and in some ways unimaginable."
Williams is charged with 71 criminal counts, including attempted murder, arson, rape and sodomy. He faces life in prison.
Julie... what percentage of people who encounter black strangers in elevators end up being raped by them?
I look forward to harrasing you in the comments section :-)
Wouldn't have it any other way.
"So, by greater chance, I mean that if out of 100 black men 6 are likely to have the traits vs out of 100 asian men 2 are likely to have the traits, I face a three times greater risk from any random black man... even though my overall chances are still small with either person."
You've vastly understated the difference in crime rates between asian men and black men.
Black people are eight times more likely to commit crimes than members of other races. (East) Asians are less likely to commit crimes than members of other races. The difference in risk is at least 1600% not 300% as you speculated.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/stix/2005/10/color-of-crime.html
Here's a link with some (racist) data. Don't read it or believe it. It will make you a bad person.
Steve-- what is the risk that an individual black person is a criminal? Is it or isn't it a fact, however much more likely his is to be a criminal than an East Asian man, that the odds that he himself is a criminal still quite low?
Define "quite low".
It all really depends on your appetite for risk. If you're female you should probably know that a black man is eight times as likely to rape you than a white man. The risk of being raped by an Asian man is pretty much negligible.
Basically, talking about the "racism" of more black people being stopped by the police is absurd without discussing the huge difference in crimes committed by black people. Unfortunately, it's "racist" to point out this difference.
In a similar fashion, people talk about "racism" in employment and credit and higher education without mentioning the IQ gap; pointing that out is "racist".
The basic plan in discussion is to force any opponent of progressivism into a position where it's either concede the premise that "society is racist to the core" or commit crime think. Crime think is then punished in various ways. In schools, there are professors and speech codes. At work, there are lawsuits for "hostile environments". To avoid lawsuits there are highly paid "diversity consultants" (like Michelle Obama). This whole apparatus is supported by the fact that everyone has to accept an obviously untrue premise: that there are no differences between races.
Freddie, isn't it a fact that 1 out of 3 African American men will end up in prison -- prison! -- at some point in their lives?
Brian Beutler just got shot in DC because he didn't avoid black neighborhoods. We're on the Atlantic's website, so you might as well read this article. Blacks bring crime, violent crime. I'm really very sorry I have to say that, really I am, but it's just true. And it's the very first thing that needs to be discussed if we want to discuss racism. This is not simple xenophobia, I am not fearful of Asian neighborhoods or my Indian coworkers, I am wary of being victimized.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime
Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.
Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore
Cogent? In this discussion of racism, Asians and Hispanics don't exist.
The world is not just black and white. There are shades of Asian, and Hispanic, and immigrants from all over. We exist, and we are part of this country, and we are not merely whipping boys, to be punished when the white man feels guilt about his treatment of the black man.
If you prick us, do we not bleed? After all, you asserted that vegans deserve some part in the national dialogue - and there are a good deal more Asians than vegans, and we've been around longer and have more legitimate grievances.
Seems like we got started on this topic lately by some kid's burning a cross. Maybe his worry about racial tension got to him and he thought he'd prove that it wasn't really there; "It's a joke, right? Laugh, please. It doesn't exist." Meanwhile Freddie and Megan are going to Church. 'Oh great spirit, forgive the moment of unbelief of my fellow racists. Let them atone by voting for You Know Who, oh great one. Then maybe some African American will say, "Some of best friends is white people" and it will be me, me, Free, Free at last; even my grandmother will want to sing Down By The River.'
It's amazing to me how many people lack basic reading comprehension. I never said people should atone for things they haven't done. Never. Again, this demonstrates that people's discomfort at thinking about race causes them to say simply irrational things.
secret asian man, anti-black racism is a different animal from any other kind. Anti-Asian and other racisms are pernicious and terrible, but I was focusing on anti-black racism.
Julie, again-- what percentage of the times that you've encountered black strangers have they gone on to rape you? You keep talking about the relative chances of a black man raping you compared to an Asian man. But what about the absolute chances that any individual encounter would result in your being raped? You're asking people to irrationally exaggerate their sense of danger in individual situations.
Julie, again-- what percentage of the times that you've encountered black strangers
Freddie, what they call "white flight" is about reducing your exposure to situations in which you are encountering black strangers.
But if I walked down Martin Luther King Boulevard (it doesn't matter which one) every day for a year, I would surely have been attacked by now.
Also, the black strangers who you do meet in white neighborhoods are more likely to be ones with steady jobs and middle class values (you can look up the statistics yourself on the jobless rate, it's as high as the jailed rate, and doesn't include the jailed).
I am saying that since there are many acts of racism in our lives
I am saying there are many (many, many, many) more acts of violent crime, academic failure, and general antisocial behavior (teen pregnancies, joblessness) than there are cross burnings or nooses.
All these accusations of "unconscious racism" are based on the idea that these stereotypes aren't grounded in reality. But they are. People don't come up with stereotypes out of thin air. I am not scared of being attacked by Indian immigrants. My dear friend has a classroom full of Chinese kids, and I do not expect them to fail calculus.
Your post and your worldview are based on blaming everyone but the guilty parties. I'm sorry but anti-black racism is not the problem here. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings but it has to be said.
Once again-- I never said anyone should confess to anything they didn't do. I said that we should lower the rhetoric in our racial discourse in order to facilitate the kind of social corrections that we use to eliminate undesirable behavior. The fact that racism to me is undesirable is a matter of first principles, and I'm sorry to say that we probably can't have a constructive dialogue if you disagree.
I said that we should lower the rhetoric in our racial discourse in order to facilitate the kind of social corrections that we use to eliminate undesirable behavior.
I think you will find that to be impossible, unless you are referring only to the undesirable (presumptively racist) behavior of white people. It has been my experience that criticism of behavior by black people is always taken to be presumptively racist because pretty much any behavior by a black person will be asserted to be part of "black culture" and rendered, thereby, beyond rhetorical reproach.
But good luck anyway. Compared to what you're biting off here Sisyphus had it easy.
There is a basic problem here. We have commenters talking about race, at least initially, just as a predictor for criminal behavior. More black people (per capita) commit crimes than white people, therefore the odds are greater (by some infinitesimal margin, I might add) that an encounter with a black person will result in the experience of a crime. And, as much as I hate to say it, this is sound reasoning, though in practice it is mostly irrelevant. The problem is that this gets extended into a race-based critique that is not defensible: that black people are more likely to be criminals just because they are black. It is probably not possible to explain to a person committed to the idea that it's blackness that results in increased criminality that there are, in fact, quite complex factors that contribute to one's propensity for crime, and some of these factors are a consequence of a society that at least implicitly entertains notions of racial inferiority in the first place.
Like I said in my first post. We need to define racism. What is "racism" by your definition? Does it allow for the fact that there are differences in the trends of genetic traits in each race, or is the fact that Blacks are more likely to get sickle cell anemia or Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs or Downs Syndrome "Racist allegations" because that makes the races different?
... and having black skin indicates a higher chance of having those traits, which means that black people are more likely to be criminals.
Group dynamics are quite predictable like that.