Meanwhile, Julian Sanchez had a very good post in response to Ta-Nehisi. You should read the whole thing, but I've been thinking hard about this piece:
Is it possible to be so opposed to racism that it becomes more difficult to root out racism?Just follow me for a second here: What image springs to mind when you think of “racism”? A Klansman burning a cross? Adolf Hitler? George Wallace barring the schoolhouse door? Images like these are iconic, easy to invoke, and extreme. They remain current because they are potent illustrations of where racism leads; their ugliness, their repugnance, is manifest.
There are still, of course, sectors of American society where the crude racism of the epithet and the noose is casually accepted. But , happily, this sort of thing largely is beyond the pale in polite company. And this makes it beguilingly easy to conclude: “Well, I don’t go around slinging racial epithets or fuming with hatred at this or that group. Therefore I can’t be one of those awful people. Why, some of my best friends…”
But the variety of racism more common today is more subtle than that, and in a way more pernicious for it, since the overt bigot is unlikely to wield much social power. It’s the subliminal reaction of the manager looking for a new cashier who, for some reason he can’t articulate, just doesn’t think the minority candidate seems quite trustworthy enough. It’s this person who we most want examining his own attitudes. But to do that means being prepared to start from the difficult premise that even he—educated, urbane, kind, and so on—may indeed harbor racial biases. Like Hitler! Like a Klansman!
Now, there’s an obvious way around this, though it should make us uncomfortable for different reasons. We could make a point of talking about race bias and stereotyping in a more gradated way. At one pole is the Klansman. At another, there’s that “typical white person” who is more guarded and alert walking past a black guy at 1am on 7th and V than he would be walking past a similarly-dressed white person.
The discomfort here comes from the thought that allowing these gradations entails licensing some forms of racism—regarding them as understandable, even acceptable. And for very good reasons, this is not the kind of conversation we want to have: “So, is this particular instance bad racism or sorta-understandable racism?” There are whole modes of thought we just want to be entirely beyond the pale.
While I think Julian's onto something important here, I wonder if this is even relevant for most of the white community. Most people just don't seem very interested in battling subtle bias.
The earlier anti-racism movements had clear goals. Free the slaves, change the Jim Crow laws, tell people they ought to treat black candidates the same as all the others. The new battle is against an endless battle against one's own thoughts. This sounds fine for people who are professional intellectuals, especially if they are focused on race or gender issues. I think that when feminist blogs say, "Everyone is sexist--we are not blaming you, but we need your help to stamp it out" they think they're extending an olive branch. But to most people, I suspect it just sounds exhausting.
And, to tell it true, the newer forms of sexism and racism aren't as bad as what proceeded them. With civil rights, we were asking people to slay dragons. Now we're asking them to spend the rest of their lives exterminating mosquitos. It may be true that a swarm of mosquitos is almost as bad, in toto, as a single dragon. But they don't summon the same sort of emotional energy.
A few years ago, Chris Rock summarized the situation in two sentences: "Not a single white person in America would trade places with me. And I'm rich!"
There's nothing wrong with defending oneself against charges of racism against blacks by saying some of one's friend's are black. The reason why the line has such a stimga is that when people used to say it, many of them didn't actually have black friends and were just referring to their caddies or housekeepers. But if you really have black friends, I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out as evidence that you're not a racist.
And Chris Rock is definitely wrong about that.
People are unfair, unkind, and do otherwise harmful things to others, for reasons not related to the content of the character of the persons having unfair, unkind, and harmful things done to them, with great regularity. Race is just one of many rationales for such bad behavior. People often suck, and the state can really only effectively battle the most pernicious forms of suckitude. After that, social shaming is the best weapon.
One of the typical white persons who said something about "being relieved if the guy was white" was Jesse Jackson. (Yes, I know we're latching on this phrase because of Obama's speech.)
I need to disagree with Hei Lun's claim that
"There's nothing wrong with defending oneself against charges of racism against blacks by saying some of one's friend's are black. The reason why the line has such a stimga is that when people used to say it, many of them didn't actually have black friends".
It is possible to be both racist and to have friend in the racial category one is racist about. Indeed, for most people with racial animus this is the typical situation, the reason that in my the line has such stigma. The racial animus has to be really high to prevent one from becoming friends with lots of people. For instance, one can easily think of blacks as inherently lazy and still have black friends, unless one has a untypically strong aversion to having lazy friends. And one might even think of one's black friends as not-typically black if they turn out not the be lazy.
I think we are getting into a grey area here. People make judgements on others' superficial traits subconsciously all the time. For example we favor tall people over short, good looking over unattractive/overweight etc. To make war on the "subtle" racism would mean we would also have to address all the other subtle biases that incluence our thinking and behavior every day of our lives. I think it is a battle with diminishing marginal returns.
If Ezra Klein's friends are predominantly folk who are so committed to stamping out subtle racism that, when walking home in the city late at night, they pay the same mind and treat in exactly the same fashion young black men wearing ghetto fashion and well-dressed white folk then I submit that it is very understandable why fully half of them have been mugged. I suspect the half that haven't been mugged are not actually as committed to stamping out these final forms of pernicious racism as they might claim over a deliciously exotic micro-brew in a newly gentrified area of the city.
Is there such a thing as being such a committed anti-racist that you become incapable of basic sane acts of self-preservation because you feel they shouldn't be necessary so you ignore any and all evidence that they are -- up to and including your and your friends own muggings?
Apparently so.
That Chris Rock statement is ridiculous. I would trade places with him in about a half a second and I'm a middle class white guy.
Let's take that parenthetical of walking down a dark street. Black men commit a disproportionately greater amount of violent crime in relation to whites. While I don't have the numbers for this, I believe that Asian women commit a disproportionately lower amount of crime in relation to whites. Which would you rather bump into on a dark, deserted street at 1 AM?
This isn't racism, this is just understanding probability. Just like a man following a woman down said street will cause the lady more concern than if it were a woman following her, not because all men are rapists, but the probability that the man is a danger is greater than a woman is a danger.
In any event, who cares what makes you nervous? The point is how you act on it. If you refuse to hire black people because you are afraid that they'll steal from you, that's a problem and the behavior needs to change.
While the original anti-racism movement had clear goals "free the slaves, change the Jim Crow laws, tell people they ought to treat black candidates the same as all the others", the new anti-racism movement has clear goals too; they're just less palatable.
The key goals are:
1. Provide employment for African studies professors.
2. Give African American political leaders a power base.
3. Provide a vote bank for the Democratic party.
If you conduct a thought experiment where racism vanished tomorrow, and ask who would lose, the answer is not "sectors of American society where the crude racism of the epithet and the noose is casually accepted". Those sectors would be better off!
However, Af-Am departments at Universities, Af-Am political leaders, and the Democratic party would be incomparably worse off.
I don't say this as someone who thinks racism is good, but it's pretty obvious who benefits from "an endless battle against one's own thoughts."
It's been 40 years since the Civil Rights movement and the south side of Chicago, large chunks of Baltimore, and fair chunks of DC are *worse* than Harlem in the 1950s. If you had told a civil rights protester in 1968 that all the rules they were fighting for would come to pass, and in 40 years a black man was a leading presidential candidate, a black man had been head of the armed forces, a black woman was secretary of state, but the life for an inner-city african american was going to be dramatically worse, they would think you were crazy. Clearly something has not worked out as people anticipated.
I strongly recommend this wonderful interview between Af-Am professor of Harvard, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and racialist Nobel Prize winner James Watson.
http://www.theroot.com/id/46667/
"HLG: Imagine if you were an African or an African-American intellectual. And it's 10 years from now. And you pick up The New York Times and some geneticist says, A) that intelligence is genetic, and B) the difference as measured on standardized tests between black people and white people, is traceable to a genetic basis. What would you, as a black intellectual, do, do you think?"
HLG is a smart cookie -- I'm sure he can find another vocation.
But this is exactly the kind of conversation we do have with ourselves whenever we're confronted with one of these moments. Do I have a good reason for thinking this way? or do I really need to watch my back? Why do I have these beliefs? Unfortunately, watching a season of "Cops" reinforces certain perceptions whether they are correct or not. And sometimes the stakes are just too high to risk erring on the "non-racist" side.
Two words: Hate Crime.
Correct.
I'm Jewish and my fiancee is black. Does this get me the benefit of the doubt with regard to my view (and hers, we're both graduate students in psychology) that genetic factors are more likely than not responsible for part of the average B-W and Gentile-Jewish IQ gaps?
The question will not be what is subtle racism, but what isn't subtle racism. This makes everyone guilty of subtle racism until they can prove their innocence. Do we really want outcomes such as this?
About half the commenters here need to click through and read the rest of the post.
Too bad most of the folks who are complaining about "subtle racism" aren't terribly worried about their own prejudices and biased behavior. Most such groups are just pro-themselves and aren't actually looking for a colorblind society with perfect sexual equality. In fact, most fight like hell to avoid such, because then they lose their handouts, their power. Try fighting those blatant offenders before you start demanding that everyone else be perfect - society won't ever get close to perfect as long as any group is allowed to be strictly prejudicial and still be permitted to have power and influence. Being pro-black is just as wrong as being pro-white, one simply happens to be socially acceptable now and the other isn't. Same with sexism, it's a rare women's group that is genuinely in favor of strict equality rather than fighting across the board for the advancement of women no matter what. Let's demand that all prejudice, no matter how trendy the beneficiary, be banished from the public sphere before worrying that a manager is making decisions, somewhere deep inside that even she doesn't recognize, that take race unfairly into account. In the long term, such behavior is leveled out by market forces - if you skip the best candidate, your competitor might not, gaining advantage.
While I think Julian's onto something important here, I wonder if this is even relevant for most of the white community. Most people just don't seem very interested in battling subtle bias.
At least not by the normally recommended methods of racial navel-gazing and mandatory sensitivity training sessions. And the idea that subtle bias in favor of people like oneself can be eradicated by those means or any means is pretty dubious -- where on earth, in what society has it been accomplished? Face it, subtle, subconscious bias in favor of people like oneself and against others is probably as good as it gets (human nature being what it is).
Now it might, indeed, be possible for skin color to no longer be a source of 'otherness' and therefore subtle bias within the U.S. -- but only if the other cultural markers of race disappear (behavioral patterns, accents, tastes in clothes and entertainment, etc). But that seems both highly unlikely and not even desirable (the cure would be worse than the disease).
A few years ago, Chris Rock summarized the situation in two sentences: "Not a single white person in America would trade places with me. And I'm rich!"
Ah, B.S. Not sure if Chris Rock ever said that, but it's pure B.S. I've no doubt whatsoever that many millions of white Americans would be willing to trade places with Rock (or Tiger Woods or Lebron or ... Barack Obama ). Hell, I don't doubt there are thousands of high school basketball players who'd be willing to have a "negroplasty" like Kyle Broflovski thinking it might give them a few inches of vertical leap.
Now we're asking them to spend the rest of their lives exterminating mosquitos.
To continue the metaphore, I do not trust mosquito repellent salespeople to give an accurate judgement about the number of mosquitos. However many there are, the salespeople will always see a swarm.
Now we're asking them to spend the rest of their lives exterminating mosquitos.
To continue the metaphore, I do not trust mosquito repellent salespeople to give an accurate judgement about the number of mosquitos. However many there are, the salespeople will always see a swarm.
Does this get me the benefit of the doubt with regard to my view (and hers, we're both graduate students in psychology) that genetic factors are more likely than not responsible for part of the average B-W and Gentile-Jewish IQ gaps?
One area I think is often overlooked in discussing the heretibility of IQ are epigenetic and pathogen related harm to IQ. Not all heretible differences are strictly Mendelian.
Of course, the interesting thing about Ashkenazi Jews is higher verbal ability yet lower spacial ability.
Sanchez: "there’s that “typical white person” who is more guarded and alert walking past a black guy at 1am on 7th and V than he would be walking past a similarly-dressed white person"
Commenter: "If Ezra Klein's friends are predominantly folk who ... pay the same mind and treat in exactly the same fashion young black men wearing ghetto fashion and well-dressed white folk then I submit that it is very understandable why fully half of them have been mugged."
Sanchez brings up a salient point, though. If I saw a group of young black men in khakis, button-down shirts and ties walking towards me on the street, I wouldn't be concerned on anywhere near the same level as I would be of a posse of white trash. I'm not sure that I would treat black and white men of the same inherent threat level the same, but the key factor in my suspicion level would be based exponentially more on behavior and dress rather than skin tone.
The issue comes in when people get treated with suspicion based entirely on their skin color. When well-behaved middle class blacks sense or see that suspicion on a regular occasion, the problem isn't solved. Klein et al aren't looking for equivalence between the white banker and the gangsta.
Meanwhile on the question of 'what to do about it', I'd say that would be figure out how to reduce the level of black poverty/criminality. As old-timey racism fades out, most racial bias will be attributable to things like crime statistics and class/cultural perceptions.
anon-
If you seriously believe one of the primary goals of the 'anti-racism' (whatever that is) is to put black professors in African-American studies departments, then I want whatever the hell you are smoking.
Re: Stefan:
"It is possible to be both racist and to have friend in the racial category one is racist about. Indeed, for most people with racial animus this is the typical situation, the reason that in my the line has such stigma. The racial animus has to be really high to prevent one from becoming friends with lots of people. For instance, one can easily think of blacks as inherently lazy and still have black friends, unless one has a untypically strong aversion to having lazy friends."
This is true. But this is also one reason that there is not much of a sense of urgency about rooting out this kind of racism. One might as well say that one instinctively thinks of people who need glasses as nerdy -- this doesn't prevent one from being friends with a fellow who wears glasses, even if one dislikes nerds. Now it's just stereotypes, and stereotypes that are, in fact, fairly easy to overcome through personal interaction (or even just signalling with things like Armani suits or whatever per Julian Sanchez). It's not even in the same ballpark as thinking that people with dark skin are subhumans not fit to sit at the same table as proper [White] men, or worse, that they need to be exterminated.
This conversation reminds me of that scene in "Crash" where Sandra Bullock and Brendan Fraiser are walking down the street, and they get nervous of the two black guys...who comment on how racist they're being, and then promptly mug them.
My impression was that "Crash" was trying to convince us that everyone is both nice and racist at the same time. That message was conveyed in about the first 20 minutes, so I was annoyed when the movie stretched for another 2 hours.
rickm:
university af-am departments exist exclusively to ensure that the concept of "subtle racism", and all its associated tropes, remains. The continual battle "against ones own mind" is very much a product of the Academy, and they influence public opinion, and hence policy, through regularly appearing in the NYTimes etc. Henry Louis Gates Jr gets about 500 hits on NYTimes.com. James Watson gets 200, many of them about him getting the heave-ho after his unpolitic comments about race.
"Subtle racism" supports a large political industry, from the Congressional black caucus to the Democratic party. There are swarms of mosquitos out there -- and they must be fought!
The academy, via the responsible, mainstream media, and the government have evolved a stable system that keeps racism alive and well, albeit in more and more subtle manifestations.
If Af-Am went away, who would do all the research showing that racism is still here in the US, albeit in more subtle forms, that then get written up in the NYTimes?
I don't think I will change anyone's mind, but I think that the facts I'm stating are very obvious.
I will note that those academics who argue that there is a difference between the races (and sexes) and that this difference may be biological, have a much harder time of things, and are rejected by polite society.
anon
I have been subject to adverse bias in my lifetime on many bases, among them; being from New York, being overweight, being bald, wearing glasses, talking funny, and being a graduate of an Ivy League school (no, I'm not kidding). Other than that, I'm (irony alert) a fully paid-up member of The Vast White-Wing Conspiracy.
People discriminate. That's a fact of life. Indeed, the word "discriminate" used to have nothing invidious about it: a discriminating person simply had taste. Adverse discrimination, that's the bad stuff.
But you can't separate adverse discrimination from life-saving good sense, unless you simply don't care about your own life and health (to say nothing of those around you). If you are foolish enough to hang around a bad neighborhood, you need to be more alert, or you will wind up in the hospital or the morgue, and the problem will be solved. There was a deeply insightful essay I read many years ago, in which the writer discussed how his (racist!) alertness in a subway station probably saved his life and certainly saved him from serious bodily harm at the hands of a well-dressed mugger: I take the moral lesson very seriously.
Finally, I think it's a mistake to reduce everything to race. Context is everything: if you are in a bad neighborhood and you see a (gasp!) young black man approaching, would it affect your perception if he were carrying a Bible in one hand? I know it would affect mine.
"I have been subject to adverse bias in my lifetime on many bases, among them; being from New York, being overweight, being bald, wearing glasses, talking funny, and being a graduate of an Ivy League school (no, I'm not kidding)."
Hey, who let the fat, bald, four-eyed, egg-head yankee in here? (j/k)
"There are still, of course, sectors of American society where the crude racism of the epithet and the noose is casually accepted."
There are?
I've been sitting here for ten minutes, flogging my memory to supply even a single sector of "American society where the crude racism of the epithet and the noose is casually accepted." I'm drawing a blank.
There doesn't seem to be a single place in America where lynching a minority wouldn't produce a swift and vigorous response from law enforcement, first to investigate the murder and then to arrest the perps. To suggest that it actually an accepted act is a bigoted comment in and of itself.
But I could be wrong. If anyone out there could simply point me to a newspaper article or other evidence that discusses a place where casual murder is given a pass just as long as the victim is a minority, I would certainly appreciate it.
James
What image springs to mind when you think of “racism”?
The nativist mentality that seems to be popular now. Whenever I suggest opening up the border between Mexico and the US for the free flow of labor, in a manner similar to the European Union, most vocal Americans hate the idea. I have no doubt that part of this animosity comes from a feeling that Mexicans are somehow inferior.
Rampant sexism here.
Whenever I suggest opening up the border between Mexico and the US for the free flow of labor, in a manner similar to the European Union, most vocal Americans hate the idea. I have no doubt that part of this animosity comes from a feeling that Mexicans are somehow inferior.
There's a bigger socio-economic difference between the US and Mexico compared to, say, Poland and Spain. That's going to arouse more resistance. "I have no doubt" isn't proof. If Mexico was for all intents and purposes a Spanish-speaking Canada, then the racism would be self-evident.
I have no doubt that part of this animosity comes from a feeling that Mexicans are somehow inferior.
Weasel words. "Part" can mean anything from "one person" to "everyone opposed to illegal immigration", and can mean anything from "they are a teeny bit racist" to "they are entirely racist". It lumps together everything from "some opponents of illegal immigration have racist feelings" (which is obviously true, since David Duke opposes illegal immigration) to "racism is a major factor in opposition to illegal immigration" (which is utter horseshit).
In all seriousness, if it's racist to take a person's race into account in a risk assessment, why isn't it sexist to his sex into account?
Each involves an involuntary imputation of status, and a calculation based upon statistical probabilities. If one is wrong, so is the other.
Once again, the discussion of racism is confused by sloppy thinking. The issues remainingin the U.S. are largely cultural, not racial, but race serves as an easy, lazy, nonthinking way to swiftly categorize someone as being of the "minority" culture.
Americans, like everyone else, are naturally suspicious of strangers to their culture, but Americans are also more likely than other cultures to open the gates wide for anyone to join their culture.
One of the ironies is that the blacks who join the American culture and become successfull are derided by the "minority" culture as having sold out to "whitey" or of being Oreos. Too bad, because there is truly room for all under the big tent, and I see very little evidence that minorities are being "kept down" because of their race rather than because of their culture.
"racism is a major factor in opposition to illegal immigration" (which is utter horseshit)
I'll call it selective racism. It's not politically correct to be racist against Hispanic American citizens, but it is permissible to be racist against Hispanics that aren't already American citizens by limiting work visas and paths for US citizenship. I hear and see much hatred in the opinion portions of radio, newspapers and television against "illegal immigrants from Mexico". The opinion givers always hide behind the claim "we're not racist we just want to enforce the law" while being very much against changing the law to allow these people to live here legally (or removing limits on legal quotas). There doesn't seem to be the same level of concern against "white" illegal immigrants.
Subtle racism doesn't bother me nearly as much as the overt racism I see on right-wing blogs like Red State, Little Green Footballs, and Free Republic. The hate is out there.
Add to that the posting from "anon" at 5:07 PM. Not so subtle, really stupid, and--of course--anonymous.
Why is it that so many wingnuts post anonymously to blogs? Are they cowards? Not truly convinced of their opinions? Both?
Once again I marvel that The Atlantic tolerates the incredible stupidity of McArdle's posts and the follow-ups from her sycophants. User-generated content meets what used to be a fine magazine, and the result is atrocious.
Nelson,
Opening our borders like the EU would entail WAY more than the free movement of labor, it would need include such things as standardizing entrants to the both countries from third parties, common legal frameworks for redress of violations, standardizing banking laws, taxation issues and a host of other things. Besides all of those hurdles, even when I lived in the southwest, no one I knew would have felt safe working in Mexico, even as a commuter. If the legal / safety issue would prevent US citizens from working in Mexico, I don't really see this as 'opening' the border, so much as declaring ALL immigration legal. If that is what you want, then call it that and ask for ICE to drop the I and focus simply on good moving in an out of the country. If that is the case, whzt do you think the non-citizen population of the southwest woudl look like? Is it healthy to have that many non-citizen who don't speak the language, understand the culture or have the franchise? I don't think it is.
I think we need to expand legal immigration, streamline the process, enforce our borders and punish law-breaking businesses. Once the border is secure, id theft (through fake SSN's) is controlled, we can afford to expand immigration to the point where we still avoid European style ghetto's and encouage assimilation.
Calling this racist is horse***t. Saying Mexico doesn't meet the legal or safety needs of an open border, is an judgement of the Mexican government, not Mexicans.
You bet it is. Ever read, say, DailyKos or Democratic Underground when an American to the right of Pol Pot dies? Psychic pus by the bucketful.
I agree that there is a possibility that anti-racism as an ideal has done as much as it can for this country. However this does not mean that we are done growing as a society, with slight unease around people that are not like us being the highest attainable goal.
The next step is multiculturalism. For most people this probably invokes pointless parties or organizations at their jobs. Possibly celebrating a holiday they wouldn't normally, but it is about more than that.
Multiculturalism is about considering the effects of other forms of life, and finally acknowledging that their are many different stories in America, most of them interesting, and most of them not like yours, whatever race you are.
The movement toward a multicultural society is slow, but at least it is a positive stance that we can look towards, instead of white people beating themselves up trying to be as not-racist as possible, just be more aware of what our countries various cultures are, what sort of stories they have, how they are reflected on tv, etc. It is pretty fascinating stuff, and once you start becoming aware of it, any little biases you use to have seem to have dissapeared without any work whatsoever.
I agree that there is a possibility that anti-racism as an ideal has done as much as it can for this country. However this does not mean that we are done growing as a society, with slight unease around people that are not like us being the highest attainable goal.
The next step is multiculturalism. For most people this probably invokes pointless parties or organizations at their jobs. Possibly celebrating a holiday they wouldn't normally, but it is about more than that.
Multiculturalism is about considering the effects of other forms of life, and finally acknowledging that their are many different stories in America, most of them interesting, and most of them not like yours, whatever race you are.
The movement toward a multicultural society is slow, but at least it is a positive stance that we can look towards, instead of white people beating themselves up trying to be as not-racist as possible, just be more aware of what our countries various cultures are, what sort of stories they have, how they are reflected on tv, etc. It is pretty fascinating stuff, and once you start becoming aware of it, any little biases you use to have seem to have dissapeared without any work whatsoever.
It is possible to be both racist and to have friend in the racial category one is racist about. Indeed, for most people with racial animus this is the typical situation, the reason that in my the line has such stigma. The racial animus has to be really high to prevent one from becoming friends with lots of people. For instance, one can easily think of blacks as inherently lazy and still have black friends, unless one has a untypically strong aversion to having lazy friends. And one might even think of one's black friends as not-typically black if they turn out not the be lazy.
Well, yes, it is possible, and there probably are many white racists with black friends. But having a black friend is evidence of not being racist, no? And I can't imagine too many black people would want to be friends with these white people you're talking about. Most people are not such sociopaths that they can completely hide their views from their friends.
Some years ago I needed a second assistant in my office. There was a temporary agency on the first floor and I told the owner about it. A black guy came up and looked around a bit. I later heard fom the owner and was grilled on how permanent my business was going to be etc. It was evident that both of them were completely underwhelmed with my ability to offer them an adequate busines plan. It was with some Schadenfreude but also some sense of empathy that I saw her, a black woman, leaving business herself a few years later. I think 'all this talk' to include statement's like Chris Rock's above leaves an aggrieved sense of entitlement in the 'black community' which when combined with the higher expresed emotion that goes with the community makes it hard for white people to feel included by the 'black community' and thus hard to include them. This is IMHO the key driver, the desire for white people to feel we are one community, that drives the Obama candidacy.
"The earlier anti-racism movements had clear goals. Free the slaves, change the Jim Crow laws, tell people they ought to treat black candidates the same as all the others. The new battle is against an endless battle against one's own thoughts. "
But contemporary racism isn't confined to some subjective negative thoughts or suspicions. There are still institutions that perpetuate racial inequality.
For example, we still have segregated cities. This isn't enforced by explicit Jim Crow laws, but it is encouraged by rent control, relaxed eminent domain rules, homeowners' associations, and other legal intricacies. A quick look around your home city will assure you that public resources are not evenly allocated between black and white neighborhoods.
We still have a criminal justice system which consistently gives heavier punishments to crimes with white victims, and most likely prosecutes blacks more aggressively. (The crack/powder cocaine disparity is a glaring example.)
It would be wonderful if all the major battles against racism had been won, and we only had to swat the "mosquitoes" of prejudice in our own minds. But there are bigger and more concrete problems left unsolved.
Perhaps part of the problem is that white folks are being asked to swat these mosquitoes by searching our souls for the tiniest speck of racism, while living in a society where Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Wright are free to declare racist bombasts from the pulpit, to cheering crowds, without being asked to search their souls. And then we get into debates over whether or not a black person spewing hate about a white person can be accurately described as racist.
Matthew 7:3-5.
Obviously there is discrimination of every sort, all around, and racism will never, ever just disappear.
Few might really sit down and imagine that a black person's grandparent had limitations on income, education, geographical region, housing, job choice, insurance policies, etc, that impacted future generations. Those grandparents are alive today so it's not some vague slavery thing in the past for blacks.
Thus there is a "blacks should suck it up" mentality that renders all history benign, when in reality the things that happen in familes affect future generations.
But also, certain black people have to ask themselves, "Why should whites embrace you if you show disdain? Why should you be accepted if you take up cultural stances at odds with the dominant or historical culture?"
For example, I recall how Republican presidents are always damned if they do, or damned if they don't, make speeches to certain black organizations. If say Bush speaks, he is mocked, if he outright refuses, he is racist.
So there are little things in all our attitudes and ways that need to be adjusted. Most of all, and this cannot be legislated, we have to judge individually (in non risk situations). We have to put outselves into the heads of other people and have a little empathy. And everyone has to do it.
As for Chris Rock's statement, his economic status makes it somewhat inaccurate. But all wealth being equal, people would probably rather be wealthy and white than wealthy and black, or am I wrong there?
Would you rather be Oprah or Martha Stewart?
Woudl you rather be Brad Pitt or Will Smith?
Would you rather be Jamie Dimon or Ken Chenault?
Would you rather be Lenny Kravitz or Dave Grohl?
Would you rather be Megan or LaShawn Barber?
I think the word "racism" itself is a barrier to meaningful discussion precisely because of the icons you mention. To call someone racist is to call him a Klansman. I prefer "prejudice" because I think it's more accurate: people tend to pre-judge others of a different color or culture.
Also perhaps a racist slam.
In my city, there is quite a lot of social segregation that rests on the very, very different cultures of black and white Southerners. From birth, through youth, to colleges, and even the sort of social clubs they join (although the golf courses are pretty well integrated), there are parallel societies, and whites are no more welcome in black society than blacks were (and in many ways still are) in white. And they are quite separate. I could easily distinguish - without the presence of *any* people, mailboxes, or cars - between black and white neighborhoods in my city with equal per-household incomes. Different cultures, different decorating styles.
Culture and class are issues that are dealt with in every country, but they are a great deal more obvious in the US because so many black Americans come from poor backgrounds and do not assimilate. As discussed above, are people being racist when they avoid young black men dressed like thugs, or are they actually being classist? It's hard to be sure, but I think mostly the latter.
Of course, I'm white, so it's probably not felt that way.
Charles Giacometti, this is anonymous not because I don't think it, or that nobody does. You probably want to say I'm doing it because I'm a coward. You'd be partially right; certain opinions are unacceptable in the workplace but are nonetheless real, and fairly open. I can trash poor whites all day long without ever jeopardizing my career, but to do so against equally reprehensible blacks would... create problems, because there are a number of race hustlers who have made their careers out of profitably taking down people and businesses that don't adequately toe the line.
(What I mean by that is that - to take a local example - certain lawyers with, say, friends in the state legislature, or in Congress, have offered to help outside companies looking to locate facilities here do the legal work associated with incorporating, buying land, acquiring building permits, and the like. You don't have to hire them, but if you don't you'll find that you face race discrimination (and other) lawsuits at every turn. This sort of thing can happen anywhere at the state level, but with race you can turn it into a federal case. Much more problematic.)
I'm sorry I've run so long, but I wanted to make the point that Coates and Sanchez (and I've read both their posts) are making very good inroads to the right place. But the problems with cultural differences are huge, and those opposing "real", as opposed to "look-at-all-the-delicious-restaurants-and-fun-holidays", multiculturalism are right to do so. Two cultures may coexist, somewhat uneasily, but there's little reason to believe they'll trust each other unless they eventually fuse.
I think the point of the "suck it up" mentality is that that is in the best interests of those so advised. It's not that the advice renders a malignant history benign, but rather that nurturing grievances harms the nurturer rather than those who perpetrated the grievance.
Think about it in a less emotive context, e.g., a sports team that gets a bad call. Winning teams put a bad call behind them. It was bad, it was wrong, but it's done now, and they move on. Losing teams are seethe for the rest of the game, and lose. Putting an injustice behind one is just sound advice, IMO.
Hi Charles:
I'm not surprised you're calling me racist. It's the standard attack against anyone who thinks that race is real, and that it matters, in a context *outside* of supporting affirmative action.
And of course I post this anonymously. I'm not sure that there is a single position less acceptable in polite society than a racist position. Note the tremendous knots Megan, and the commentators tie themselves in to avoid any thinking, even for a minute, that they might be racist. Look -- they even self-flagellate themselves and acknowledge that they have subconsciously racist thoughts, and always will, and therefore will never be able to say anything about racism than apologize!
I don't know if there is a genetic difference between races when it comes to intelligence. There might be, there might not be. I *do* know that it's debatable, and there are plenty of perfectly respectable sources taking both sides of this issue. gnxp.com is a reasonable source to read all sides of this discussion, and there are others.
But this debate is anything but open and free. One side of the debate is pilloried in the press, risks losing their job, and finds the burden of proof places entirely on their side. Guess which side that is. I'm fine, btw. with 3), but think that 1) and 2) is not "rational", "scientific", or "enlightened". It's more Inquisitorial, and reminds me of a certain Papal reaction when an Italian demonstrated that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vica versa.
Suppose, just suppose, that the science eventually delivers a clear verdict: blacks, on average, have lower cognitive ability than whites. Then what? At an individual level this does not matter: when you interview someone for a job you have *a lot* of information about them and don't need to consider a surface element like race. But you would no longer expect equal racial representation at all levels, you would on longer need to conjure up discrimination to explain why black nobel prize winning mathematicians are under-represented. Discovering a tie between cognitive ability and race does not impact individuals, but it is *lethal* to the affirmative action industry that is focused on representation, not the individual merits of any individual.
HLG put it well: "Imagine if you were an African or an African-American intellectual. And it's 10 years from now. And you pick up The New York Times and some geneticist says, A) that intelligence is genetic, and B) the difference as measured on standardized tests between black people and white people, is traceable to a genetic basis. What would you, as a black intellectual, do, do you think?"
The answer is clear: what else are you good at?
We also have an answer to "Ending racism: are we there yet? Huh? Huh?". The answer is "no" and "we will never get there because eliminating racism would mean we don't need a Congressional Black Caucaus, or the Democratic party to keep the US from sliding back to the days of the KKK and Jim Crow". Racism supports black power brokers. Therefore it will never be eliminated.
-anon
You know what's not helping:
This
Affirmative action is a red herring. If you are truly that obsessed with it, you are either a loser who is blaming it for your failures or you are a racist, plain and simple.
Besides, I didn't even bring up affirmative action, and I hardly think about it. I'm talking about racism, outright hatred of people because of their race. It exists, and if you don't think it does, just cruise Red State, or Free Republic, even for a few minutes and you will see it in action.
Agree with me or not, but recognize that your opinions are far outside the mainstream. Most Americans still recognize racism as a problem in the U.S. See http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/12/racism.poll/index.html, for example.
Finally, that you keep posting anonymously is just making my point. Identify yourself by name, or don't expect a further response. Life is too short for me to deal with cowards.
My personal opinion, and I feel theres quite a lot of evidence to support it, is that we are wired for racism. Its a socioibiological imperative to build a 'my tribe/not my tribe' worldview. The only way to overcome this is to raise our children so that they are actively resistant to racism. And that won't solve the problem, but it will be a step in the right direction.
Charles
I do agree with you that racism exists in the US, and that people do hate people of other races. Certainly you can see this on Freeper, but there's way more than that our there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk
I also agree with you that my positions are far outside the mainstream! That's why I post on this issue anonymously, if I did not, I would no longer get invited to chic cocktail parties.
And you didn't answer my question: suppose science does find that there is a genetic link between race and cognitive ability. Don't you think this might be a big deal? Don't you think this might justify treating people differently based on their race (if you know nothing else about them)? Don't you think that this removes any social stigma that some might feel between statistical discrimination (which is quite different from taste-based discrimination)? Don't you think that perhaps any program focused on equal representation, such as affirmative action, might need to rethink it's point? Don't you think that this may have some impact on the not inconsiderable industry that has built itself around the truth that all races are equal?
If you don't think that this is discovery would be a big deal (assuming it was made) then why all the name calling? I've been completely civil.
anon
I think we should work hard to eliminating racial prejudice in any form whatsoever... except towards Chinese.
The problem with eliminating racial prejudices towards Chinese is that half an hour later, you get bigoted all over again.
To extend what Will Allen and MS have said, don't just think about "generic tall, handsome black man" vs "short, gnarly white guy". Instead, think "Denzel Washington" vs "Robert Reich".
Why does anyone, either white or black, care whether someone else hates them, as long as laws exist to prevent arbitrary discriminatory behavior? What conceivable difference is it to me if a black person hates me because I am white ( as some do) or to a tall person who is hated by a short person or an attractive person who is hated by an unattractive person?
An individual's thoughts are their own. Trying to prevent that by having everyone "look into their soul" creates a normal push-back, no matter who is pushing back; a black, white, tall, short,
beautiful or ugly person.
Basically, why is it so important to someone else what I think of them? Am I allowed to like individuals who may be black but dislike what I have seen black culture become during my life?
If to be racist is to not like someone for arbitrary reasons, we are all racist.
Because in order to have recousre under the law you have to be able to prove discrimination in your particular case. This kind of covert racism affects people every day in a million little ways that are individually unprovable and therefore unenforceable by law.
One example is in getting a job. There have been studies showing that just the presence of a "black-sounding" name on a resume reduces the number of job interviews a candidate gets called in for by up to 50%. Anti-discrimination laws are useless against that kind of thing because it's individually unprovable, but in the aggregate this kind of racism is clearly there and millions of people are hurt by it.
SeanH,
If indeed the studies about black-sounding names are true, and they probably are, I would think the prudent thing to do would be to give your child a more traditional name, as used to occur in the black community, rather than a name that is easily misspelled and mispronounced.
The solution to some problems lies within oneself. If I needed a job and felt I wasn't getting interviews because my first name was a black-sounding name, rather than whine, I would start calling myself John on my resume. That's what Indian and Asian engineers often do when sending out resumes. It works for them.
jbb,
Sure, there are ways to work around some things, but I sure don't think having to conceal your cultural identity in order to get a fair shake in hiring is an acceptable solution to widespread prejudice. If anything it deepens the psychological hurt of being treated like an outsider in your own country.
Even if it were an acceptable solution, that's just one burden out of many that this kind of racism puts on people. Going by John isn't going to help a young black man catch a cab, keep him from being disproportionately trailed by security in store, and so on and on.
Sean,
I am sensitive to the fact that blacks have things tougher than whites, but I am also aware that things have gotten dramatically better in my lifetime and that many of the problems blacks face now are either self-inflicted or miniscule. In some way, we all have challenges to overcome. While I agree that many things that blacks have endured are a shame, many people from other cultures have overcome challenges and we all overcome challenges in our personal life. Rather than demonize the cabdriver for not risking his life by picking up a young thuggishly dressed and mannered black man, we should demonize the parts of black culture that taught the young man that it is a good thing to look, speak and act like a thug. I don't want to be the arbiter who calls the cab-driver a racist for making a decision about his personal safety and then have to explain to his widow- oops, I was wrong, that kid was a thug after all.
If a 18 year old white kid walks aimlessly around a store dressed in baggie pants, hooded sweatshirt with the hood pulled up not making eye contact with anyone, he's going to get followed too
Also, how is the black kid (or white kid) harmed by a security guard following him? If blacks would stop worrying about what everyone else thinks about them and just live their lives productively, this would all solve itself within a generation, in my opinion.
I hate to admit it, but living in DC has made me increasingly "racist" (and classist). I put racist in quotes because I don't think most of the things that annoy the crap out of me are racial in the sense of genetic. Rather, I think they're probably what you'd expect in a situation where, as here, a people were enslaved for a couple hundred years, then subjected to third class status, and then aided for another 50 or so years by a welfare system that has discouraged work and two-parent family structures. Add to that mix the startling decline of the black church and the advent of drug-related gang culture, and, well, welcome to DC.
I understand all this. And yet when I am confronted by an angry, rude or potty-mouthed black chick -- something that seems to happen at least several times a week in DC -- I don't feel exhausted so much as annoyed. And when, as happened last week, a group of my friends are called "fags" by a group of black guys driving in a huge SUV with tented windows (which suggests the black dudes aren't hurting for money), I'm thankful I don't carry a gun because it's so easy to imagine myself using it.
In response to Megan's broader point: "I wonder if this is even relevant for most of the white community. Most people just don't seem very interested in battling subtle bias"
You are missing the point, or making a dumb one. Things may be better for woman and minorities, AND stamping out subtle racism might be uninteresting to most, but it is still an important societal goal if we are to live up to our meritocratic creed.
I understand that as a blogger, it annoys you terribly to have to worry about being called a racist, but the broader import of stamping out subtle racism is not changing your writing. It's in the bleeding to other contexts that Julian talks about ... from being street aware, where some type of profiling might make sense, to viewing minorities differently in the workplace, from choosing not to interact with people different than you, and from people in power making choices that disproportionately favor people that look like them.
Subtle racism all. Not so interesting always. But important.
Oh h***, politically savvy blacks and their white liberal enablers will never run out of things to whine about. It's all such a hustle I can't believe it's taken seriously.
Speaking as a parent of a young son and as one who was born in India but raised here (in the U.S., predomninately, Ohio), what I sense these days, especially among my son's classmates, is not racism but social exclusion, a social exclusion based on differences in home life and cultural style between children who do not share the prevalent cultural background and assumptions. For example, the other children assume that my son is interested in hanging out at the swimming pool, fishing, talking about sports (and practically every sports team) in a way that he is just not and never could be--based on the fact that at home, we do not regularly expose him to the same things as the parents of these other children. Also, not being 100% assimilated in a way that I suspect is similar to readers of the Atlantic, I have never understood the American adage that one should refrain from discussing one's religion, political beliefs, or economic background--this is something that we do constantly at home in our many social gatherings and something which my son instinctively undertakes in his school settings.
Nelson writes:
"Whenever I suggest opening up the border between Mexico and the US for the free flow of labor, in a manner similar to the European Union, most vocal Americans hate the idea. I have no doubt that part of this animosity comes from a feeling that Mexicans are somehow inferior."
This reveals far more about your own prejudices than it does about those you stereotype.
And some Obama fan writes:
"A few years ago, Chris Rock summarized the situation in two sentences: "Not a single white person in America would trade places with me. And I'm rich!"
Chris Rock was trying to be funny. It's a joke.
"One of the ironies is that the blacks who join the American culture "
Excuse me, but I did not "join the American culture", I was born in the American culture. Your definition of "American" is apparently white. The rest of us have to make efforts to join in. All it takes to be an "American" is to either be born here, or to become a naturalized citizen. I am a an African-American woman. This is where I was born. This is where my parents were born. This is where my grandparents were born. This is where my great-grandparents were born. This is where my great-great-grandparents were born. And - given that the importation of enslaved Africans ended in 1808, then I guess we go back quite a few more generations. My people have been here, and been "American culture" far longer that a lot of other "Americans." The first enslaved African arrived here in 1620, before there even was an "America". We have influenced what is called "American culture" from the very beginning. We don't join American culture, we are American culture and until people like you stop thinking of us as outsiders, and so very different than you, separate if you will, then the problem of racism will continue. Tell me, when did your people arrive and "join American culture"?
Stella,
Forgive me if when I say "American culture" I am referring to the majority culture here in the U.S. If you were born black in an urban ghetto, no, you weren't born into American culture. If you were born black on a military base or in a suburb or rural area, you probably WERE born into American culture.
American culture is not a matter of race, but culture. Wanting to maintain an urban ghetto culture and crying about the advantages the rest of America has is simply whining. WE ARE NOT KEEPING YOU OUT. You're keeping yourself out, if indeed you are out.
I grew up in a partial minority culture, because when I grew up, the majority culture was WASP--and I wasn't. So I understand a little, but only a little, of what you go through daily, because there is no easy colored skin identifier on me. But if American blacks joined the majority culture, then skin would no longer be a cultural identifier. I use the phrase "American blacks" because the Islander blacks have joined the American culture, much to the dismay of the American blacks. Look at Mt. Vernon, New York to see the hatred that American blacks have for the Islander blacks. (The two together constitute about 80% of the population there.)
I'll say it again and again--the issue is culture, not race.
As for when I joined the American culture, I was born and raised in it. But my grandfather wasn't--he came to this country as a four year old, as a jew from Poland or the Ukraine. As he grew to adulthood, he raised his kids in the American culture, who then raised their kids in the American culture.
If it's not too late, you can raise your kids in the American culture too.
Charles Giacometti - Re: "Affirmative action is a red herring. If you are truly that obsessed with it, you are either a loser who is blaming it for your failures or you are a racist, plain and simple."
Nice false dilemma. Also a bit of ad-hominem as well.
Affirmative action is a form of racial prejudice. Sure some people may exaggerate it as an issue, and I wouldn't recommend obsessing over it any more than I would recommend obsessing over racial problems, but someone making it their pet peeve hardly has to be racist and/or a failure in life.
We should combat "the dragon" that Megan talks about, to the extent they still exist in our country, but they are pretty much gone.
Maybe now we should swat some of the worst "mosquitoes" (while giving working to create an environment less conductive to "breeding" new ones), but to much mental focus on racism (including the obsessing about affirmative action that you mention) isn't usually very healthy. The point now is to move on with life, and try to treat people as people, rather than being prejudiced by their race.
----
Finn - Re: "Few might really sit down and imagine that a black person's grandparent had limitations on income, education, geographical region, housing, job choice, insurance policies, etc, that impacted future generations. Those grandparents are alive today so it's not some vague slavery thing in the past for blacks.
Thus there is a "blacks should suck it up" mentality that renders all history benign, when in reality the things that happen in familes affect future generations."
Yes the past effects the present, including unfair actions in the past, but that doesn't mean that either blacks or whites gain from focusing on the unfair past, rather than trying to be fair going forward. Occam's Beard has a pretty good analogy with a sports team and a bad call. Focusing on the future is better than seething about the past. Yes the racist acts of the past where much worse than getting a bad call in a game, but the same principle applies, esp. to the extent that these acts where commited in the distant past.
"In the real world, a sense of grievance or entitlement, as a result of the mistreatment of your ancestors, is not likely to get you very far with people who are too busy dealing with current economic realities to spend much time thinking about their own ancestors, much less other people's ancestors."
~Thomas Sowell
Charles Giacometti wrote: "Affirmative action is a red herring. If you are truly that obsessed with it, you are either a loser who is blaming it for your failures or you are a racist, plain and simple."
Nice try, no cookie.
"Affirmative Action" is government imposed racism. It is a bald statement by government, and by everyone who supports it, that "race" matters. It is, in short, a direction from our government, and from our society, that you should judge people based on the color of their skin.
Because if you shouldn't judge people based on the color of their skin, then "Affirmative Action", which does exactly that, is wrong. If you want a color-blind society, you start by having the dominant institutions of your society be color-blind.
If you don't want a color-blind society, you're a racist. As such, you've forfeited the right to complain about anyone else's racism.
More about this, and how it may explain some things about Michele Obama, here.
I quoted this post in a recent blog entry of mine:
http://kylopod.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-bigotry-chopping_16.html