Portly Dyke has an interesting post up about the reluctance of white people to talk about racism, a subject that Pam’s written about before a few times here, and in it she had a quote that turned me into That Guy, the one who offers nitpicking criticisms.
*Now, just to be perfectly clear about that whole “whitey/honky” thing? When I’m talking about Racism, I’m talking about the cultural oppression of racial minorities by racial majorities. If you’re white and American, you are part of a 75% racial majority, and regardless of what anyone has told you, Racism is not an Equal Opportunity Oppressor.
She’s referencing white people who make like they’re victims of racism if anyone calls them “honky”, which is a claim that makes me scoff when I hear it. (The “but someone called me honky!” claim, not her claim that some white people hide behind it.) That word has fallen so far out of the general usage that it was a joke in the 1970s, and is now like the term “politically correct”, used exponentially more by conservatives erecting a strawman than anyone else.
Anyway, I agree with her that racism is not an equal opportunity offender, and that’s why the word “racism”, like “sexism”, sometimes makes me uneasy; the older terms “white supremacy” and “patriarchy” are useful for a reason, since they indicate the systematic nature of the problem and who the top dog is. It gets it out of the realm of sniffing around for hate in hearts (which can come back on prejudiced racial minorities, creating a chaotic distraction from the real problems), and it also creates that situation where white people can talk about racism, as Portly desires. One of the pitfalls for progressive whites talking about racism is the tension between the hate not in our hearts and the privilege we nonetheless hold.
My nitpick—which I shared in comments, and to which Portly immediate agreed—was that the majority/minority model also needs to be abandoned since it ignores the prevalence of apartheid systems like that used to be the law in South Africa, where a minority race rules over a majority race. Or, in a lesser degree apartheid, a minority race is still privileged over a majority race, which is unfortunately still the case in South Africa despite the formal end of apartheid, because of economic compromises the ANC made with the white government that was on its way out that protected the white financial control over the nation.
It’s interesting that my nitpick occurred as we worked our way through season 3 of “The Wire”, of which we’re two/thirds the way through in this house. I’ll give a more literary review, as it were, when I finish it, but right now I’d like to recommend the show, and its 3rd season in particular, for its revealing take on the systematic nature of racism that functions even in a city that seems to have overcome the American version of apartheid. Baltimore functions, on the show (and I presume in real life) under a system of semi-apartheid—the city is majority black, and there’s a powerful black middle class that supplies a steady stream of black people into positions of power, from the mayor on down. Under the civil liberties model of anti-racism, this amount of power consolidated into black hands should be a saving grace to a citizenship formerly oppressed for racist reasons, and in the imaginations of conservatives and many liberals, it does represent just that. We’re all equal now, right? Look, black people in power!
Except not. The impoverished underclass is still black, and while there are definite benefits from having black leadership at a political level, the fundamental, structural problems that maintain the existence of a large black underclass haven’t gone anywhere and thus the large black underclass hasn’t gone anywhere. The show focuses on the drug problem that splits everyone in the poorer parts of the cities into two groups: those in “The Game” and those not, called “citizens” by players and cops alike. And citizens largely live in a state of low-level terror of getting caught up in the violence of The Game.
But as the show makes abundantly clear, The Game only exists because The War On (Some Classes Of People Who Use) Drugs creates it. And slowly but surely, you see all the gears of The War On Drugs/The Game, how they’re one beast that functions to suck up young black men (and some women) into a felony loop and make them ineligible for participation in the legal economy,* to suck money out of the community up the ladder, and to make otherwise good (if poor) neighborhoods crime-ridden. And then images of black crime are used to dehumanize black people and drum up racism, which is then parlayed into cutting social services from welfare to education that would help expand middle class opportunities to people living in poverty, helping cement the existence of the underclass. That felons can’t vote in many states is just icing on the cake for white supremacy, a form of Jim Crow that seems impervious to the pressures that reversed other racist voting regulations.
Is it any wonder that the War On (Some Classes Of People Who Use) Drugs really kicked into gear as formal segregation was in its death throes? And as long as the black leadership in the community is beholden to racist structures like the War On Drugs (which is just one of many, but an important one), they can only do so much to really tackle the problem of racism. Not that I’m faulting anyone for being beholden to anything in that sense; no man is an island and you can’t just opt out. Hell, local leaders in some communities who decided to legalize medical marijuana—the most minor truce in the drug war you can possibly imagine—got to meet feds on their steps trying to force the issue. Three things have become clear in the fight over medical marijuana: 1) The War On Drugs is such a travesty of justice that even the smallest crumble in the wall threatens the entire structure and 2) People who are highly interested in keeping our racist system the way it is treat the maintenance of the War On Drugs as priority number one, which means 3) It’s a critical foundational structure for our racist society.
It’s no wonder that a lot of people throw up their hands and give up when faced with seemingly insurmountable problems like the structural nature of racism and prefer instead to either deny that we’re still a racist society or to confine the concept of “racism” to the individual hearts of individual people. What amounts to a huge overhaul in our worldview and social structures to progress past the point where we as a society are stuck seems almost too huge a task to comprehend, much less tackle.
*Now, the widespread use and sale of illegal drugs would mean, in a non-racist society, that our prisons would be overflowing with people of every race and class. As it is, selective enforcement changes everything. It’s not just dealing and using, either—the targets for being thrown in jail after giving birth to children that test positive for drugs are largely women of color. White middle class women who use during pregnancy surely exist and are almost surely overlooked because no one thinks to test them.
80 Responses to “Structural racism, The War On Drugs, and my new TV obsession”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
While I can follow along with the specifics of everything in this post, and don’t actually disagree with anything therein, the parenthetical “(Some Classes of People Who Use)” thing got really distracting through overuse in this post.
Sorry I don’t have much to say content-wise. I do agree that, as a white male, I am less nervous about discussing ‘white supremacy’ than ‘racism’ (However, I actually find it a bit easier to discuss ’sexism’ than ‘patriarchy’).
Racism is one of those “it frustrates me, but I have no firsthand experience with it aside from extremely rare occasions of experiencing reverse racism on an individual basis, which is nowhere near approaching the actual problems that systemic racism causes for minorities, so I don’t feel qualified to do much but listen” things for me.
I am very interested to see the next season of The Wire and how they examine the media’s role in racism and politics.
The term “White Supremacy” has its own baggage due to that that it is used, both by the people themselves and the the people who watch them, to describe the full-on 100% white racist assholes who think open apartheid was not only a good idea, it was too liberal (also that Jews aren’t really white people, so on and so forth). Basically typlified by any group that uses the word “Aryan” in their name unmockingly.
So it really isn’t useful at all because you’ve given assholes like that a weapon by using it to describe an existing system in general: if everyone white is by default part of the white supremacist system, then the actual white supremacists, well, they can’t be that bad, can they?
“White power structure”, “race based inequality”, whatever else is fine, but “white supremacy” is a very specific codeword that carries a lot of meaning.
I think one of the biggest problems with the whole War on Drugs is that the racist structure of enforcement flies under the radar for a whole lot of people.
If someone doesn’t use (illegal) drugs regularly or hang out with people who do, that person wouldn’t really be aware of the radically different treatment of drug offenders based on race. When I was in college, I was very conscious of institutional racism and biased sentencing practices, etc. But I had never been aware of the serious disparity in enforcement of drug laws until the past few years. There’s probably a fairly large group of people who fall into the same category I did.
The other problem, I think, is that media bias where drugs are concerned doesn’t just hype up the black crime issue. It also reinforces the “Drugs are EEEEEEVIL!” message: in the 80s and 90s, drugs were the main boogeyman pushed by the news shows, essentially holding the position that terrorist attacks hold today. I think that mindset and media fear mongering goes a long way to lessen sympathy for drug offenders and disguise the racist component of the whole War on Drugs.
That is pretty suspicious.
Incarceration is discussed here, so I hope it won’t be considered OT if I say that it’s unbelievable how people are being locked up for these things, still. If racism is the motivator, it seems to me that the country can’t afford to be racist any more. Even if you don’t consider the morality of imprisoning people for what are really trivial offenses that don’t necessarily harm anybody but themselves, the simple fact is that prisons cost money. Money means raising taxes (usually), and Republicans like to promise that they will keep taxes low.
So…fewer prisons & fewer inmates, or higher taxes? What’s it gonna be, guys?
Somewhat off topic, but this NYT magazine article about physician-assisted suicide fits right in here too. One of the key ethical arguments against PAS is that society wouldn’t treat people equally, because we don’t value lives in the same way, and hence kill more minorities, women, and disabled individuals. (The author cites the example of African Americans who, as a general rule, receive less care than their white counterparts, but are far more likely to have limbs amputated).
I think this underscores the need to attack the issues of racism/white supremacy (if the war on drugs, disparate sentencing, etc., don’t make it clear enough). I wish people were capable of saying “Okay, I don’t consider myself a racist, per se, but I do recognized that I very likely treat people differently based on race, class, gender, etc.” and make an effort to work against those tendencies.
Rob, Republicans have amply demonstrated that money is no object when it comes to government functions they support, like bombing other countries or locking up as many black people as they can find.
I have some (family) experience with the War on (some classes of people who use) Drugs, and it amazes me how little punishment white people get. My nephew’s parents (SIL and her boyfriend) were heavily involved/potentially running a drug ring in the Chicago burbs, and were arrested when she was 5 months pregnant. They both had some major charges on them, including weapons, RICO, and possession with intent to distribute (NOT marijuana). In addition, he ran, so he got resisting arrest and managed to hit a person with his car as he was running.
She was white, middle class, suburban, AND pregnant, and spent a total of 4 months in jail. She was out two weeks before she gave birth, and has 10 years of parole.
He’s white, and was sentenced to 5-10 years but will be out within 2.
This was on the serious major end of drug dealing, and that’s all they got? I was shocked when I heard this, and I’m betting it’s largely because they’re both very white (and her being hugely pregnant at trial)
I think you made a good point here!
I don’t like definitions of racism that say only white people in the majority can be racist to people of color. The first reason is as you say here: it confuses the issue because even if white people aren’t in the majority, they can maintain a caste-like superiority.
The second reason is that it ignores the problems of internalized racism, like self-hatred and colorism, by centering all the power and responsibility for racism onto white people. A white person or white-dominated system cannot rebuild the positive self-image of someone raised with a constant background message that they are inferior and irrelevant. This is a task we absolutely have to accomplish on our own.
I’d also add that taxation isn’t an issue, Rob, since they clearly have no objection to running up giant debts to pay for these projects. No need to raise taxes on the rich when you can just borrow the money with the sense that the economic collapse will be SEP. (Somebody Else’s Problem.)
The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is indeed truly the closest thing we’ve had to a race war in this country.
Its had racial overtones from the beginning, from “Southern Negro Cocaine Feinds” to changing the spelling of Marihuana to Marijuana to make it sound more “hispanic”. Marijuana was originally banned pretty much because Mexicans liked to use it and there was some hysteria about them raping white women.
Meanwhile if you’re Rush Limbaugh, you get rehab and a slap on the wrist.
Old data, but almost certainly still valid, from the early 90s in florida: Pregnant women had their urine tested for drugs after anonymization, with race still recorded. Rates of drug use were essentially indistinguishable (slightly high cocaine numbers among minority women), but reporting of suspected drug use was 5x higher for minorities than for whites.
And yeah, in a lot of ways it’s about the roles, not who fills them. If you have to wear a white penis to get into positions of power, the underclass is still going to be composed of people who don’t.
“*Now, the widespread use and sale of illegal drugs would mean, in a non-racist society, that our prisons would be overflowing with people of every race and class. As it is, selective enforcement changes everything. It’s not just dealing and using, either—the targets for being thrown in jail after giving birth to children that test positive for drugs are largely women of color. White middle class women who use during pregnancy surely exist and are almost surely overlooked because no one thinks to test them.”
WHOA. Unless something has DRASTICALLY changed in the past decade, I disagree with the “lack of testing based on color of the mother” idea. Prosecution, maybe- but not the testing aspect.
I was a lab tech for 15 years and worked in a downtown Baltimore hospital laboratory for 6 years. We performed the same set battery of tests on each woman, starting with the first prenatal visit and later upon admission to the hospital for delivery- and every time, it included a routine urinalysis and urine drug screen. We also did an HIV as part of every woman’s prenatal testing.
In 1995, I delivered my elder daughter at the same hospital I had worked at for years, and my battery of tests were exactly as every other woman having a child at that hospital. And yes, I am a white, middle-class woman.
To make a statement such as this without some sort of documentation or anecdotal evidence is speculative of what OB/GYNs are doing at best and deliberately provocative at worst. The supposed “lack of testing based on race” isn’t the problem and where is the “proof” that positive drug tests for white women are being ignored? Show me some evidence other than what a writer on TV concocted, please…otherwise, this statement just doesn’t stand up to reality.
The last one of these racism threads I got mixed up in was over at Marc’s Punkass Blog.
Of course, the discussion inevitably decayed to the point of somebody is saying somebody else can’t be a racist, and by calling them a racist, that proves you’re the REAL racist, etc.
I jumped in about halfway into the discussion when I finally got pissed enough with the trolls who had derailed it. It ended up with my being called a “racist woman hater” for being a white male.
But i won’t give up on race discussions because they are far too important to put in a box…
“Its had racial overtones from the beginning, from “Southern Negro Cocaine Feinds” to changing the spelling of Marihuana to Marijuana to make it sound more “hispanic”. Marijuana was originally banned pretty much because Mexicans liked to use it and there was some hysteria about them raping white women.”
Correct! But if you’re a white legacy pledge to Yale or Harvard (or a Reichwing propagandist), then we should not interfere with your “research” on controlled substances. We know you’re properly equipped to handle it.
“Meanwhile if you’re Rush Limbaugh, you get rehab and a slap on the wrist.”
See above…
I had a class on race and law where a white student pointed out that racism could work both ways. I responded that bigotry certainly could: it was a moral wrong for whites to discriminate against blacks and for blacks to discriminate against whites. But racism relies on existing power structures. In short, blacks are last hired first fired. If some blacks are racist towards whites, really, what substantive effect is there?
I’m not concerned about some hillbilies in the south hating me because of my skin color; I’m concerned that an entire political party despises me because of my skin color. Racism is a pragmatic concept, bigotry a moral one.
I use the term white supremacy for the same reason Amanda does. In fact, a peeve of mine is that white supremacy will almost never show up in judicial opinions. Instead, they harp on the notion of black inferiority, as if the problem originated in people of color. Our antidiscrimination jurisprudence has ben utterl perverted because insecure, morally convicted judges refuse, like scared children, to see how they benefit from discrimination due to their race. The phrase “white supremacy” would force that confrontation, the same way acknowledging a family member passed on blood money to you would force you to rethink your wealth.
Minor nit: anti-felon voting is substantive Jim Crow. (Not actually contradicting Amanda, just clarifying.) The anti-felon laws were aimed at blacks: I recall reading the minutes of a congressional hearing where a congressman actually pointed out the efficacy of the law in keeping niggers from voting — that was the word he used.
I disagree; I’ve never used it that way. This may be a cultural divide; let me clear, no person of color I’ve ever known has EVER used “white supremacy” to refer to the pseudo-Nazi state you refer to. The notion strikes me as stupid. White supremacy simply refers to a philosophy that whites are better than everyone else, no genocide or apartheid or similar required.
This is another problem with race issues as well. When whites hear racism, they think southern bigot.
I couldn’t give a fuck about a redneck racist. I think they’re actually funny.
When blacks hear racism, they think of a complex, huge, heavily-moneyed infrastructure that allocates resources along racial lines and affords the only legitimate way of analyzing itself. . . such that evidence that the infrastructure is racist is discounted by the infrastructure itself. (With rare exception; cf. Katrina, media.) People of color don’t give a shit about yokels, we care about the Fortune 500 hiring practices.
Breakdown:
The minor racism of a HR employee who decides that, between a white and a black candidate, the black one is a worse one even though his education is better, is a HUGE problem. The bigotry of some dumbshit with a rifle is not. If the latter commits a crime motivated by his racial hatred, the system will prosecute him in all likelihood. This isn’t the 50’s. The problem is the first asshole will get off scott free — or even be rewarded for his efforts. And fuck, I can SHOOT the second asshole and be called a hero for doing so.
So white supremacy is definately the right term to use. If it means something different to you — more terrifyingly, if it means something different to whites — we need to have what Confucious called a “rectification of names” and reestablish what we’re talking about.
(Btw, “white power structure” is ridiculously loaded to my ear. It rings of conspiracy theory. The phrase doesn’t literally mean that — this is an unfair attributation — but it soundsd of that nonetheless. Anyway, that aside, white supremacy is broader and more accurate both since it refers to a philosophical viewpoint while a “power structure” implies a knowingly formalized system, which may not always exist in a specific case.)
Keep in mind that moral virtue isn’t free. Consider: what are the results of the elimination of the war on drugs and, in counterbalance, greater prosecution of government/corporate crimes? The result is many, many, many more white people in prison. Whites use more drugs than blacks. Police avoid targeting white neighborhoods with stings. If we start arresting whites for selling drugs, we will do two things:
a) Actually hurt the drug trade and
b) throw white communities into an uproar.
By the way, arresting white people is also the ONLY way we will get prison reform in this country. The ONLY way. Arrest them on an equal basis, eliminate country club prison, and I assure you a spontaneous prison reform movement (made of comparably well-off whites) will find itself on the national scene.
Actually, minorities end up paying for that, too. Once you create the debt, the taxation system pays it off. Since our tax system is rigged, the least fortunate take on the burden. We’re still paying for Reagan’s thefts and fuckups.
Keep in mind that moral virtue isn’t free. Consider: what are the results of the elimination of the war on drugs and, in counterbalance, greater prosecution of government/corporate crimes? The result is many, many, many more white people in prison. Whites use more drugs than blacks. Police avoid targeting white neighborhoods with stings. If we start arresting whites for selling drugs, we will do two things:
a) Actually hurt the drug trade and
b) throw white communities into an uproar.
By the way, arresting white people is also the ONLY way we will get prison reform in this country. The ONLY way. Arrest them on an equal basis, eliminate country club prison, and I assure you a spontaneous prison reform movement (made of comparably well-off whites) will find itself on the national scene.
Actually, minorities end up paying for that, too. Once you create the debt, the taxation system pays it off. Since our tax system is rigged, the least fortunate take on the burden. We’re still paying for Reagan’s thefts and fuckups.
Louise, was the majority of the hospital’s clientele white or black? Do you think that a suburban hospital in predominantly white neighborhoods employs the same battery of tests that an urban hospital in a majority black city does? A lot of “colorblind” policies are less so when you look at things geographically.
Minor nit: anti-felon voting is substantive Jim Crow. (Not actually contradicting Amanda, just clarifying.) The anti-felon laws were aimed at blacks: I recall reading the minutes of a congressional hearing where a congressman actually pointed out the efficacy of the law in keeping niggers from voting — that was the word he used.
Thanks for the clarification. I was unclear on the origins of these laws, if they were Jim Crow that stayed on the books or post-Jim Crow Jim Crow, the revised version that looks more polite. Apparently, the former. No big surprise there.
An essential element of structural racism is paternalism. It’s not merely a matter of believing that certain groups of people are inferior, but also of believing that the superior group has a duty to look after the inferior. The clearest example is “the white man’s burden” but it’s a subtext in a lot of discussions about privilege in other areas as well.
The crack/cocaine sentencing disparity has traction among people who do not hate poor black people precisely because they see the communities in which crack use is prevalent as needing the protection of benevolent outsiders. That is IMO why you so often see drug discussions framed in terms of predation when the context is poor inner city youth, but rarely (if ever) when the context is stock brokers or frat boys.
Honestly, Amanda, I don’t know statistically what the race breakdown of our patients were for Mercy; I’d guess 50/50. None of the lab records (computerized or paper), forms or sample labels had race documented AT ALL. It is located right in downtown Balto and when I was there, was the only hospital in Maryland in the nation’s top 100 hospitals- not even Johns Hopkins a mile away was on that list.
Last I knew, Mercy employed over 2000 people and was a very busy place- thousands of babies every year were born there and on average, 40-50 babies in the NICU on any given day. We did track those, as they used so many different blood products (blood, plasma and platelets) every day and we double-checked their information daily. Many preemies and many born positive for heroin and cocaine.
Before that, I worked in Austin, Boston, and Maine as a lab tech- everywhere I went, the required prenatal workups/ admission workups were standardized and as I remember it, fairly consistant from location to location.
HOWEVER, whether or not the results were handled appropriately once they left the lab and were given to the Dr, I can’t say. Would it surprise me if some were reported and some not? Frankly, yes. For one thing, the existing HIPPA laws are very strict now and the opportunity for a lawsuit in mishandling medical records could result in loss of medical license, among other penalties. But the hatred and ignorance of racism has been astounding me for years- many of my dearest friends and favorite coworkers in Balto horrified and enraged me with some of their stories. Racism is something that REQUIRES uncomfortable, disturbing confrontational discussion, if it is ever to be dispelled. I hope to live to see a day when it’s a concept scorned and discarded by all.
OT… That some states would pass laws requiring all positive drug results be reported would not surprise me at all- we DID have to report all positive RPRs (syphyllis) tests to the state labs by law.
In the ’80s and ’90s, however, we (hospital labs) were not under any legal obligation to report positive drug or alcohol tests on ANYONE, adult or infant. In fact, for a blood alcohol test to stand up in court, it had to be drawn in a standardized, sealed kit with witnesses and strict chain of command protocol. It was then sealed and sent to the state laboratory for testing. If one little detail was screwed up, it wasn’t admissible as evidence for conviction of a drunk driving case, for example. The kit even provided a sealed betadine wipe to cleanse the area, so the tech couldn’t accidentally use an isopropyl alcohol pad, which could falesely elevate the result. It even had a sealed set of gloves, so there was no chance of contamination!
I became a lab tech because the work was interesting and with my anal/retentive eye for details, a good way for me to be able to help patients. To think that with my work I could have been contributing to the incredibly complex problems of racism… I hope not. I truly hope not.
Rob and Amanda, in re the prisons, they are expensive, but not only do Republicans view this as money well spent (and money that will be paid off by regressive taxes on debt) as Amanda pointed out, but they also view the prison system as a good thing for political reasons.
The prisons are out in the sticks where the people vote heavily Republican largely because they’re a bunch of racists. Those prisons provide jobs for otherwise-unemployable white sticks-dwellers. Those prisons are put there by Republican state representatives, who then benefit from the political support of the prison employees. It’s all very tidy and revoltingly corrupt.
“It ended up with my being called a “racist woman hater” for being a white male.”
I’m sure it’s not intended this way? But that sounds a lot like you’re saying you were victimized by reverse racism and sexism.
“I’m sure it’s not intended this way? But that sounds a lot like you’re saying you were victimized by reverse racism and sexism.”
It was said in a context that lead me to believe it was a pointed tease at my expense. I have no problems with that. I can take the heat. I also understand that my existence as a white male makes my discussion of race potentially suspect, just as it makes my discussion of feminism potentially suspect.
I only mentioned it because my experience with racism threads on (leftist) blogs leads me to believe they usually have a similar comment arc which eventually leaves any valuable discussion points buried in huge piles of finger pointing bullshit.
My point was that even if that fate awaits (a lot of the time), these discussions must continue to happen. The more we talk about this stuff (I believe) the higher the chances that we will be able to grow out of some of the adolescent stuff, learn to listen to each other, and learn to get along…
I strongly agree that one of the terrible things about the War on Drugs is profound and pervasive racism (not only the program to ruin black people’s lives in the US, but also the war on farming communities in South America, Afghanistan, etc). I think that ending/radically transforming the War on Drugs is vital for promoting justice, economic welfare, and liberty.
My impression is that a great deal of the anti-Drug War political energy in the US is currently channeled into/allied with libertarian groups. I am curious whether you think that effective political momentum against the War on Drugs is something the left will need to develop independently of existing libertarian anti-Drug-War activism, or could there be productive coalition on this issue?
Disclaimer: I am a libertarian, so you may ignore this as the question of a troll and general nogoodnik if you find all mention of libertarians tiresome. As a libertarian, though, I’d be the first to admit that libertarian anti-Drug-War activism has been largely ineffective (as thrilled as I am about Hailey, Idaho…) and if the left could succeed where the libertarians are failing, that would be just fine.
Louise,
First, thanks for your two very detailed and heartfelt comments. I know a fair amount about the nursing end of the hospital world, but not much about the view from the lab. Very interesting.
Now, to get back to the important thing here: television…
I think that your anxiety is the essence of The Wire — virtually every character on the show could say exactly the same thing about what they do. The only exceptions would be the ones who don’t think about their own situations, those who are utterly cynical in their devotion to their institutions (Pryzbo’s FIL being the best example), and Omar.
But it’s damn hard to be a renegade lab tech running a crew of outlaw arm-stickers. In order to accomplish anything, you need to be inside an institution. But once the institution has you, you’re pretty much stuck doing what it wants, whether you’re a cop, a union president, a mayor, a teacher, a corner boy, or (I’m guessing) a reporter.
it seems to me that the country can’t afford to be racist any more.
Technicaly, we’ve never been able to afford it. I’m not aware of a culture where institutional racism led to long-term economic stability. Institutional racism (particularly in the form of slavery) is more often a contributing factor to a culture’s decline and collapse.
Even if you don’t consider the morality of imprisoning people for what are really trivial offenses that don’t necessarily harm anybody but themselves, the simple fact is that prisons cost money.
More relevant, I think, is the fact that prisons make money for the contractors who build and maintain them. The overlap of the military-industrial power structure and the prison-industrial power structure is pretty scary.
And most of the prison-industrial movers and shakers have strong ties to those “Law and Order loving” Republicans who just coincidently support tossing more people in prisons…
Hm…
As a result of recent elections, all positions of power in Baltimore City are held by black women, including Mayor, City Comptroller, City council President and State’s Attorney for the City. Yet, as Amanda states, our underclass here is still predominantly black, and we still have a high quotient of drug addiction, prostitution and AIDS cases in that population. So yeah, as a Baltimore resident, it’s a somewhat strange state of affairs.
I thought the third season, and all of the show up until then, has shown how in some ways the division between “citizens” and “the Game” is so artificial. The politicians, the dockworkers, the spouses of the police officers are all touched by the Game, as are the contractors building the condos the drug money was financing, as are the men patronizing the strip clubs also financed by that money. The suburbanites and college students who drive in for drugs and then leave and talk trash about their city in their holiday parties and dorm rooms are also part of The Game.
The “drug problem” cannot be quarantined in America’s cities, and we cannot outline entire areas of those cities as forsaken and forgotten. But in cities like Baltimore, it happens every day, and in other areas of the country, people continue to believe that the War on Drugs has nothing to do with them or their lives.
So white supremacy is definitely the right term to use. If it means something different to you — more terrifyingly, if it means something different to whites — we need to have what Confucius called a “rectification of names” and reestablish what we’re talking about.
It absolutely means something different to whites. If you’re white (like me) and hear “white supremacy,” you immediately think of the Aryan Nation or the Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party or the dozens of other groups on the lists at the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Simon Weisenthal Center. It means something very specific in public discourse and in court cases where white supremacist groups have been prosecuted under RICO laws.
Timothy McVeigh was a white supremacist with close ties to the Aryan Nation and other groups. If you tell a white person about “white supremacists,” that’s who they’re going to think of, not the guy in HR who chooses resumes based on how white the job candidates seem to be.
More relevant, I think, is the fact that prisons make money for the contractors who build and maintain them. The overlap of the military-industrial power structure and the prison-industrial power structure is pretty scary.
Correct! That, the drug testing industry, and a self-perpetuating War on Politically Incorrect Drugs government bureaucracy that doesn’t want to lose its precious funding.
Have you ever noticed, that when drug use declines they say “We’re winning! Give us more money!”
When drug use goes up? “We’re losing! Give us more money! More prisons! More insane laws! More, more more!”
And the only Presidential candidates that want to end this insanity are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. *sighs*
I thought that prejudice was something practiced by an ignorant/willful individual and *racism* was something practiced by an ignorant/willful majority or ruling class.
I don’t think I am not very pedantic but it annoys me when a white person uses the two words interchangably and they don’t see or understand the difference at all.
Their logic kind of falls into the “false equivalence” argument.
I have to say, I always had to laugh when I heard the word “honky”. Even when you’re saying it as pissed off as you can say it, it’s just a hilarious word. It sounds like a joke alien race from a B sci fi movie, the furry bouncing balloon type with bulb horns for noses.
“Watch out, Flash Gordon! Here come the Honkies!”
Beep BEEP bounce zing SQUISH
“The Honkies squished Kenny! YOU BASTARDS!!”
[White supremacy] absolutely means something different to whites. If you’re white (like me) and hear “white supremacy,” you immediately think of the Aryan Nation or the Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party or the dozens of other groups on the lists at the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Simon Weisenthal Center. It means something very specific in public discourse and in court cases where white supremacist groups have been prosecuted under RICO laws.
I was going to write something substantially equivalent to this, but Mnemosyne beat me to it.
Amanda’s post and the general consensus here are all on the right track, but I would add this: “Progressive whites” are somewhat stymied from open discussion of racism/bigotry because they are as socially ill-at-ease around lower-class blacks as “conservative whites” are. It’s a discussion that, to have any point at all, must occur between average-Joe whites (generally middle-class) and average-Joe blacks (generally working class). We talk and behave somewhat differently, and most educated, liberal whites are just as socially segregated as any other white people. (Please note that most is by no means all.)
I was reminded of that recently in these very “pages,” when I was accused of being dense for not understanding that using “chocolate” to refer to black skin was inherently ugly and racist. My accuser, I’m certain, had spent precisely zero minutes in the company of average-Joe blacks. Or in the company of Ray Nagin, for that matter.
The laws that disenfranchise felons go back much farther than Jim Crow:
“But look where the laws preventing felons from voting arose, the advocates say: in bigoted post–Civil War legislatures, keen to keep newly emancipated blacks away from the ballot box. These laws are utterly racist in origin, like poll taxes and literacy tests. But this argument fails on two counts. First, as legal writer Roger Clegg notes, many of the same studies appealed to by felon advocates show that the policy of disenfranchising felons is as old as ancient Greece and Rome; it made its way to these shores not long after the American Revolution. By the time of the Civil War, 70 percent of the states already had such laws.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_felons.html
I became a lab tech because the work was interesting and with my anal/retentive eye for details, a good way for me to be able to help patients. To think that with my work I could have been contributing to the incredibly complex problems of racism… I hope not. I truly hope not.
I just want to echo what Pesto said. There’s a reason that we tedious leftists talk about collective solutions, even though it makes people roll their eyes and whine about “blaming society”. Well, society *is* to blame. Structural racism is not one thing or the fault of one individual. That’s the point of my post—if well-meaning, competent, creative black leaders can’t find the magic bullet solution, then how the hell can any of the rest of us be expected to?
I think one of the reasons racism is so hard to talk about is the overwhelming diversity of experience out there - a white person from a small town in Montana has a different take on the situation than a white person raised in NYC who has a different take than a white person raised in LA, or in New Orleans. Just like there is no unified “black” experience, there is no unified “white” experience. And then you throw in different levels of learned knowledge, and the need to keep inducting the newbies into the conversation (lovingly, of course, lest they get too offended and leave the room). It’s all mushy, treacherous territory out there, folks.
When the systems of overt discrimination, like Jim Crow, began falling apart, the bright line disappeared and all of a sudden well-meaning white folks didn’t know where the problem was - they heard about racism still happening, but gosh if it’s not hard to pin down! For most white people, the conversation about racism is a lose-lose proposition: They will feel bad, make mistakes, be frightened, look ignorant, and (if they actually listen) they will leave the conversation feeling a little overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem. Sounds like fun! Sign me up!
Of course, the only thing worse than talking about racism is *not* talking about racism. So suck it up, white folks, and don’t be afraid to look like an idiot. How else can we possibly move forward?
I’ve heard of at least one instance–I think it was in Georgia–where the legislature was trying to count prison population for purposes of apportionment of congressional districts, thereby making their districts look more race-balanced than they actually were.
@ Procrastinating_Revolutionary:
Yeah, I think I like the word prejudice as a better description than something like “reverse racism” (which doesn’t really seem possible to me at this stage of things), but it wasn’t coming to mind at the time I wrote.
@ bluish:
I can’t speak for all white people, but for my own part I’m uncomfortable with talking much about racism (aside from telling other white people “hey asshole, cut that shit out” when they’re being racist) because I don’t know how to approach it without trying to sound like I’m putting words into peoples’ mouths or like I’m trying to make them into some kind of token.
“I’ve heard of at least one instance–I think it was in Georgia–where the legislature was trying to count prison population for purposes of apportionment of congressional districts, thereby making their districts look more race-balanced than they actually were.”
Shades of the US Constitution’s original sin: The 3/5ths “Compromise”…
That said, there are individuals with significant amounts of power. If the President decided to call a truce in the War On Drugs, went on TV and explained that our nation can no longer tolerate the entrenched racism, the prison-industrial complex, the crime, or the countless lives lost to this go-nowhere war, that could in fact have a significant shift overnight in the way this country does business.
@sheesh:
I think you are not alone. I grew up in urban areas where there were lots of different folks around, and so there was no risk of turning the *one* black person in the room into the mouthpiece for all of black experience. But there’s no way around the fact that many white people, due to geography or class or whatever, just don’t know any people of color well enough to engage the conversation without feeling like they are doing what we have been told never to do: put the person of color “on the spot” about racism.
Luckily, there are people who have made themselves available to talk about race - in their writings, films, blogs, etc. Right here, even! Although asking vulnerable questions on blogs is not for everyone.
It’s not the same thing as a face-to-face conversation with a friend. But there are tons of resources out there. Read some Cornell West or Alice Walker or bell hooks or James Cone. Read up on the Bracero Program in the 1950’s.Go to New Orleans. Find out about La Raza.
And maybe you’ve done all that, and still feel stymied. That’s where I am right now. I think that the next American generation has some powerful things to teach us about race, if we let them.
*CAVEAT* reading Cornell West does not make a white person an expert on racism. It just makes them a little more well read about the subject. I constantly feel like I’m stepping on landmines, and I’ve been working on this shit since high school (13+ years)
“Of course, the only thing worse than talking about racism is *not* talking about racism. So suck it up, white folks, and don’t be afraid to look like an idiot. How else can we possibly move forward?”
bluish, you completely nailed it- there is such a hesitating, toe-dragging, “oh shucks, I dunno…” mentality to discussing racism. I was guilty of this myself prior to living in Baltimore; it took accidentally pissing off a coworker with an email for me to learn and get past my fear of offending.
Our lab computer system was going down for maintenance, so I emailed everyone to let them know to refer to our white patient file cards for blood types. Within 2 minutes, a older coworker came in and demanded to know what the hell I meant, sending a memo like that, and what about the BLACK patients? So I held up a file card and asked her what color the paper was, as that was what I was referring to. We both apologized- it was inadvertantly the start of a wonderful friendship!
We ended up sharing almost every lunch after that together for years and became close; she was 40 years older than me and told me stories about her life as a black woman growing up in Baltimore that horrified me. After she retired and after I moved up here, we remained in touch- I called her on her birthdays and holidays. A lovely, tough lady who changed my life forever.
Yeah, I think I like the word prejudice as a better description than something like “reverse racism” (which doesn’t really seem possible to me at this stage of things), but it wasn’t coming to mind at the time I wrote.
It does (occasionally) happen, but it’s (a) pretty rare and more importantly (b) almost never against white people. There was a case here in Los Angeles at King-Drew Medical Center (of course) where a doctor from India sued because although he was the most qualified person to run the emergency department, he was passed over and told that they “had” to give the position to an African-American so it wouldn’t look bad in front of the community.
I think white supremacy is the right term to use– for the same reason that “the patriarchy” is the right term to use. Maybe we should call it “the white supremacy,” so that people kind of realize it’s A Thing That Has Happened. It isn’t just this thing that crops up, this “racist” bug that jumps onto people and spontaneously makes them spout hateful rhetoric before disappearing into the ether. It’s a historical system. I feel like the idea of the term white supremacy is, implicitly, that you can be a white supremacist in a hood or in a sherriff’s department, but you can also work for and against the white supremacy (often at the same time) because it’s the operating system of our society on this planet.
I agree with the fact that it’s not about majority and minority, too. Besides the fact that racism operates even when– and precisely because– the identities of people implicated in it aren’t straightforwardly black-or-white, racism can’t operate without sexism, IMHO. If at least half the people on either side of that black/white divide, or that white/non-white divide, are also exploited by the patriarchy as women or privileged by it as men, you can’t come to a simple conclusion about who the majority is and who’s not– people come in wholes, but peoples come in pieces. that’s how these systems work, by slicing us up into those pieces according to the power some of us would like to keep.
Just a nitpick, its not a “75% majority”. Taking out “white” hispanics is more like 64% now.
As a historian (which I am in RL), I like the capital letters/uncapitalized versions of white supremacy - similar to the distinction between republicanism-little r -a theory of government and Republican Party, capital R - proper name of a political party.
When I’m lecturing about White Supremacist movements (note the capitals), I’m lecturing about groups like the KKK, early or late, or Aryan brotherhoods or the Redeemers of the reconstruction era, groups that had actual manifestos and platforms articulating White Supremacy as an ideology and as a political platform.
When I’m talking about white supremacy as an artifact of modern racism - no capitals.
The capitals thing is a good idea, nell.
One of the problems about talking about racism is that whites and blacks (and other races) are usually talking about different things. Blacks usually complain about institutional racism, whites usually acknolwedge individual bigotry. Thus, Jena fit into conventional black narratives as “part of the problem” while it was clumsily categorized by the mostly-white media as the result of the shortcomings of certain individuals. (I’m being too generous here; some outlets refused to find even bigotry there, even less evidence of systematic racism despite a decades-old blatantly bigoted rule at the story’s heart.)
Really, I think whites would have an easy time learning about race if they just read some reports on economics. Educated whites I know who are absolutely comfortable discussing race have two characteristics: a) they understand that economic disparities exist between races and classes in the U.S. due to an unfair system and b) they’re fine with losing some privilege in order to see this corrected. It’s “b” that’s the sticky widget.
Failing to encounter bigotry is not evidence of a lack of racism. Anyone who’s gone through the home-buying process has probably touched upon it, unknowingly.
Can we differentiate between racism and individual bigotry? Being called “honky”(Is this George Jefferson?) is bigotry. Job and housing discrimination, neglected schools, etc., is racism.
That’s mostly what I’m saying, pablo, and it’s what I’ve heard other historians do. Pretty much all conscious bigots are racists — they’d love to have their views enshrined in institutions. Not all racists are bigots: there are whites who know that persons of color get a raw deal and that whites are privileged and simply don’t care or revel in said privilege. . . but they don’t think they’re better than anyone else. Just lucky.
I don’t care how you feel. I care how you use your power in civil society.
Me too. Anyone with an interest in getting white folk of good will to join the conversation will be better served to use language that is not accusatory on the front end. All good and well to redefine loaded words to suit what you mean, but words are shortcuts for meaning, and unless you want to redefine them for every listener or reader who comes along, the use of “white supremacy” brings the spectre of David Duke along with it.
“Institutional racism” may be cumbersome but it conveys the meaning of racial disparity in results, independent of bigotry, which is what I understand most of you want to address.
A “conversation” implies a two-way exchange. Often white folks shy away from them because they suspect the conversation will not be two-way but rather a lecture to them. The denial of the existence of reverse racism when it arises (yes, it is a man-bites-dog story) feeds that suspicion.
Just yesterday the Baltimore Sun reported on a noose incident which sparked outrage and calls for federal investigation and turned out to be a hoax. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.ci.probe02dec02,0,5563956.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout
But the president of the Baltimore NAACP claimed the fact that a black man instead of a white left the noose was further evidence of racism:
Today’s society may be dominated by whites but it can be made to jump and dance by allegations of racism. The recent unpleasantness in Durham is a pretty good example of it. Jena may have been too, since that seemed to be a garden-variety prosecutorial overreaching which largely self-corrected before all the brouhaha.
All good and well to redefine loaded words to suit what you mean, but words are shortcuts for meaning, and unless you want to redefine them for every listener or reader who comes along, the use of “white supremacy” brings the spectre of David Duke along with it.
And once David Duke appears, people have an out to excuse themselves, because they’re not like those Other, bad white people. They can continue to think of themselves as well-meaning nice people who just don’t feel “comfortable” with black or brown people, so they just won’t call Ms. Washington or Mr. Martinez in for an interview because they wouldn’t fit in with the rest of the office.
Racist? Of course. But calling them white supremicists on top of it will only make things worse.
@sixtiesliberal
The problem is that “the conversation” gets derailed by white people’s stories of “reverse racism”. Whites “jumping and dancing” in response to allegations of racism is not the point. The point is that any time racism gets brought up, the *one* time some unfair thing happened to a white person gets held up alongside the life-long experiences of most people of color, as if to say “see, we’re all in this together”. It totally destroys the chance of real communication by focusing the attention, once more, on the experience of the white folk.
The “conversation” you seem to want goes like this:
Person of color: “Damnit, last friday night I got pulled over by the cops again and the movie was sold out by the time we got there. It totally ruined my date. I’m tired of this shit.”
White person: “Hey, it’s not just POC who get harassed by the police. I got pulled over once and the cop was a total jerk to me, too.”
POC: “Did they make you get down on the ground in front of your date, too?”
WP: “No, but once this friend I knew in high school who went to the public school where he was the only white guy had some black dudes pin him down and write “cracker” on his arm in permanent marker. The principle didn’t even suspend the black kids who did it. If a white kid wrote “nigger” on some black kid, you can bet Al Sharpton would be all over it and that kid would be expelled. I mean, if my buddy wasn’t a racist before, he sure is now. If black people want white people to be their friends, then they have to be nicer to us. Everyone get picked on - racism is bad, don’t get me wrong, but if we want to get anywhere we have to work together and not get sidetracked by minor issues like traffic stops.”
POC: “It’s so nice to have a white friend who I can talk to about this. I love my people, but sometimes they get a little crazy with the accusations, seeing racism everywhere! I mean, if you wear the baggy pants, people will think you’re in a gang. It’s just common sense.”
WP: “Right on, brother!”
[end scene]
sixtiesliberal,
As mnemosyne rightly points out, there is David Duke, and then the rest of the white people, who just don’t feel “comfortable” with black or brown people, so they just won’t call Ms. Washington or Mr. Martinez in for an interview because they wouldn’t fit in with the rest of the office. This is what white people believe and how white people act. It’s called white supremacy (lower case) for a reason.
bluish makes another strong point that any discussion of racism needs to focus exclusively on white on black racism. There is bigotry, and then there is racism. We should focus on racism and not bogg down our conversation on teh whites.
If you check out Angry Bear some pages down and look for the Therapist1’s guest post, I was at my vituperative worst in the comment thread…
But it’s not a shortcut. To say white supremacy ONLY means nazism and the KKK’s beliefs is simply a lie.
You really can’t hold one person responsible because an entirely different person believes a lie.
White supremacy simply doesn’t make sense as a notion that can only be held by violent, virulent bigots. Any supremacy notion covers a range of beliefs.
And your replacement, “institutional racism,” does not cover what we intend to address. It is no replacement term for the philosophy that needs to be attacked by our courts. When our courts speak of discrimination as diminishing blacks, we need them instead to say that discrimination empowers whites. The phrase “instiutional racism” does absolutely nothing to convey this notion. Though useful in other ways, it is utterly nonoperative in this context. And there is no phrase in this discussion that would not be loaded — if you think “institutional racism” isn’t loaded, then you use the term differently from everyone I grew up with and everyone in my family. Not to say your wrong about the impact, but to say that there are some phrases in a race discussion that will always sucker-punch someone. Always. Everything involving race is charged in the U.S. due to the actions of persons who stood to gain by creating a racist system in the first place.
I think we would be better suited unloading the rather silly assumptions about white supremacy than use a completely inappropriate phrase. Keep in mind, the misinterpretation of white supremacy has nothing to do with the phrase itself and everything to do with the self-effacing delusion that the only racists are white supremacist rednecked bigots and all other whites are a-ok. In other words, if we could convince the majority that the real racism problem in the U.S. is built into how the majority enriches itself at the expense of others and not do to isolated incidents involving yokels, the phrase white supremacy will be simultaneously disabused.
And by the way, I don’t think that the fear of being likened to David Duke is justification for anything. The rightwing has mainstreamed race hate in a way that I have never seen in my entire life — ever. The last time there was hatn’ on brown people like this was before I was born. This is not a time to fear overreach; the extremes have already been achieved by our enemies and we are at no risk of overdoing anything.
Well, bluish inventing an insulting dialogue and attributing it to my thought process sure is persuasive. Maybe I’ll fall right down on my knees and confess my racists sins.
Nah, let’s try a different scenario.
“POC: [story of about dwb]
WP: That really sucks. How can we work together to reduce that bullshit?”
and
“WP: [story about magic marker on the arm]
POC: That really sucks. That shouldn’t have happened. Those kind of incidents of blatant racism are thankfully rarer and rarer on both sides. What concerns me more is how prejudice, unconscious or not, is infused into the whole system. For example . . . .”
The structural hiring problem is worse than not calling in the candidates for an interview. It’s calling them in and discounting them for a supposedly race-neutral reason, like their school.
I thought the topic was how to get whites to participate in the conversation. If you want understanding you need to find the commonality of human experience. They can understand humiliation of being forced to lie face down in front of a date. They can understand the scene in “Crash” when Terence Howard’s wife is groped by the racist cop and he can do nothing to stop it. It hurts nothing to acknowledge the relatively rare instances of black on white racism and to condemn them as well.
if we could convince the majority that the real racism problem in the U.S. is built into how the majority enriches itself at the expense of others and not do to isolated incidents involving yokels, the phrase white supremacy will be simultaneously disabused.
Your eloquent description of what you understand the problem to be, which is not how some cracker feels but the hiring and housing discrimination actions which are carried out by people who may not even know consciously that they are enforcing a system, makes me think you’ve thought about this quite a bit.
That said, I deeply disagree with your suggestion that using ‘white supremacy’, which in my experience as a white person is a dog whistle*, can result in conveying to our hypothetical Average White Person that racism is a system s/he benefits from daily, not something ignorant hillbillies do on weekends in linen hoods.
If we can somehow communicate that [the problem] means the hierarchy and its consequences, not something you feel in your heart or spleen, then [white supremacy] can be used to describe it.
Up until that point, presentation and packaging are issues to contend with, not wave away.
*The pitch that white people use on each other, not intended for the consumption of people of color, goes like this–sing along if you know the words–Well, she thinks we’re racist because she didn’t get promoted but we all know that racism is something those people unlike us feel. Not something we would do.
NOC,
Our last comments were being written at the same time. If the current hate climate is the worst you’ve seen then you are young indeed. I spent a lot of time in Tennessee with relatives who had their own pet names for MLK, Jr. before he was murdered. I spent some time in Georgia and Mississippi, too, in the 70’s.
It may have been Aaron Henry in Mississippi who said We aren’t where we want to be and we aren’t where we are going to be but thank God Almighty we are now where we used to be.
I am not suggesting complacency. But things have been much, much worse. And not that long ago. Do you think a U.S. Senator calling a POC ‘macaca’ would have resulted in him being voted out of office 10 or 20 years ago?
A couple of things, given my rantings in that Angry Bear thread…
Talking about race to white people can be immensely aggravating. In my experience, very few white people are prepared out of the blue to understand systemic bias, because so many of them percieve an admission on that score is the same as an admission that they are at fault. Some are only prepared to talk about race in *very* narrow terms (for example, some will only discuss in paternalist terms). Pressing for understanding usually results in cries of me being racist against whites. Pressing for equity in the laws gets cries of black people wanting to get handouts!
The most infuriating thing about that stupid thread was how much self-satisfied talk there was about how black people need to change their culture (reject thug culture), with every attempt to do so in an exercise in blaming the victim in prime concern troll fashion.
I’ll buy that Phoenix. I’m not giving up on the phrase unless someone really can create something better, but I do understand that whites will be off put.
But there’s another issue here: it’s not my fault they are. I didn’t make this system. And while I accept that I have a duty, as a U.S. citizen, to destroy it and replace it with something better (second part is important, yo), I refuse to come anywhere near accepting responsibility for the hangups of whites — namely the dog whistle you referred to. I had to do a lot of hard thinking about this issue, and some hard doing, and have a ton more to do (if my lack of health insurance doesn’t do me in first). Persons not of my skin color will have to do the same before it all gets fixed and there’s simply no substitute for that. Whites have to meet people of color halfway at least because the system’s made it impossible for us to go any further.
Maybe that was too abstract. To use an overused example: the noose in the Jena event should have been pretty obviously a racist and bigoted institution. Nevertheless, the media played both sides. Frankly, people of color could not win over confused whites in the noose discussion because the media cast them as just one side — and you know the media isn’t interested in weighing the strength of an argument, merely in presenting the conflict, the aggression, the negative emotions of the arguer. (Recall Krugman’s “shape of the earth: views differ” line.) That should have been a freankn’ slam dunk yet I still saw blog posts asking “are nooses really racist?” (Insert South Park flag reference here; ignore if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)
The civil rights movement’s object wasn’t blacks. It was about whites changing how they treated blacks and others. Blacks didn’t wake up in 1955 and say, “waitaminute, Jim Crow sucks ass.” Whites realized it existed due to the actions of activists (black and white). I had an old white female friend who told me that she had no idea what was going on until she saw protestors attacked with firehoses on television. . . and when she saw that, she broke down and wept.
So, fine, I can see how whites will find white supremacy to be dog whistle. But you have to understand, there’s no phrase other which accurately captures the problem: there’s way to shine this turd, and I sure as hell am not the one who dumped it in my high-rent, low-quality living room. Group A shouldn’t have to face economic injustice because individual B is fucking uncomfortable.
I am indeed young, with all the vitriol of someone who hasn’t lived long enough to become too attached to metabolizing oxygen. (That shits’ already gotten old, imho.) Advantages and disadvantages to that kind of dissatisfaction. . .
I don’t mind dating myself. I know, as you rightfully point out, that things have been worse (and perhaps viewing the past only through books and grainy videotape has sharpened the pain of the 60’s for me). But I despair at the very thought that things might slide back to that time. You lived it. I honestly do not believe that we can pull of the victories of that time once more. The media is simply too far gone. I think the U.S. can come back from economic oblivion, but I don’t believe it can bounce back from overstrong racial divides.
Because of this, I tend to be very paranoid about mainstreaming race hate. I admit I risk overzealousnes, but I haven’t been proven wrong quite yet.
Oh, and one more thing. Everyone who tries to raise awareness is trying to speak against a multibillion dollar effort to reinforce racial mores.
I went up against this first in the OJ Simpson trial. I watched that trail obsessively, and listening to all the analyst takes (Greta was pretty hot in those days). However, the evening news was *never* giving a very representative account of what actually happened, so most of the people who didn’t interface with the nasty side of the structural racism never understood why OJ got off. When, as that representative black dude in the high school honors class, people asked me how he got off if he was so plainly guilty, and after I answered that he had really good lawyers who had rather decisively proven police misconduct, they just couldn’t buy that answer. They see all those genetic smoking bullets, but can’t handle the idea that the police shouldn’t always be trusted, especially if they’ve proven bad faith conduct. Technicalities! And the News makes sure they see it that way, by presenting certain things as if they were Man Bites Dog…
Everything is supposed to a certain way. If not, then obviously, there is a TECHNICALITY that changes things from the natural state of subconscious white supremacy. Reverse discrimination claims is a great way to blow my top…
Yeah, No One of Consequence, you were pretty shocked at how readily the discourse started allowing *very* racist talk in so many discussing areas? It was like a switch was flipped, and many people felt that they could let their inner bigot out.
with respect to Katrina, sorry…
Sixitesliberal,
My point was not that you should fall on your knees and confess racist sins. I don’t think that forcing people to confess Don-Imus-style to having seen the racism light helps the situation.
My point is just that bringing up the issue of “reverse racism” derails the conversation, it doesn’t facilitate it. And it *always* happens. In every thread about racism.
Complaining about reverse racism is like forcing someone who’s got skin cancer to acknowledge my dandruff problem before we can work on curing cancer together. Sure, both problems stem from dysfunctional skin cells, but only one is deadly.
My point to you was that to ascribe wanting an insulting imagined conversation to someone you don’t know at all does not facilitate conversation. I assume you noticed my confession was facetious.
What stops the conversation when reverse racism arises (and I didn’t bring it up, it arose a couple of times in the form of denials before I entered) is the denial that it occurs. Then people are stuck in a circle of “yes it does exist” vs. “no it doesn’t”. The imagined conversation I responded with acknowledged it but moved past it to the more important and much more pervasive issues of imbedded white prejudice and the effects on large numbers of people of color in this country.
Your cancer analogy would be more apropos if you used bone cancer vs. skin cancer. One is more central and systemic but they’re both cancers.
And lets not forget that you get to count your prison population as part of the state population for federal funding purposes, and that you get to exploit them as slave labour.
As for the whole racist drug war… Jello Biafra said it all years ago.
Shah8, your phrase that OJ got off because “he had really good lawyers who had rather decisively proven police misconduct,” is the most concise and accurate statement I’ve read or heard on the case. American jurisprudence has a bias toward letting the guilty go free when the effort to convict and imprison is a product of corrupt or other misconduct of the state agents, police or prosecutors. I didn’t find the verdict hard to accept at all. The unbridled glee in some quarters at the acquittal was difficult to accept.
NOC, I didn’t see your post #64 in the wee hours before I posted mine this morning and I appreciate it. Sometimes a little paranoia is healthy, in the self-protective kind of way. There’s an old joke that says just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean there aren’t people out to get you. Just give some of us a chance to show we are not one of them.
Hm. Not quite. This is the racism/bigotry divide again. If a black man discriminates against a white man in the workplace, it’s obviously wrong (and grounds for suit). But that white man cannot argue that the black man is acting as part of a subtle, insiduous system of oppresion. He can’t point out there’s never been a white president, that his race is singled out for crimes that are mostly committed by blacks, that he makes up the majority in the prison system and so on.
It. Is. Not. The. Same.
Not even remotely. Not even slightly.
The black man has the ability to do wrong to a few white people. A bigoted white person in a racist milieu can harm thousands.
If I kill you with a thrown knife, I’m guilty of murder. That’s serious, no doubt.
If I kill you with a M16 loaded with armor piercing rounds, I’m guilty of murder. Also serious.
The first murder, however, is irrelevant to a discussion of arms control. It’s a derail. You can’t point to the seriousness of the crime in order to introduce it; the seriousness wasn’t the issue (just as the moral impact of black to white discrimination isn’t the issue). Knives aren’t part of a greater, insiduous system. 50% of the “legitimate” gun trade is used by criminals; the second murder says something in that narrative.
Discussing “reverse racism” is a derail. Not saying you did it, Sixties. But it’s just not the same conversation (though it is important for other reasons).
Amanda, *so* cool that you’re a Wirefiend. Season 4 kicked my ass(in a good way, but damn, George Pelecanos can make me cry.)
People still think people say “honky”?
Even as a honky, I don’t believe that. And I’m not exactly down…I’m sure you feel me on that.
(I would say “The Wire” is the new black, but given the overall subject matter of your post, it seems vaguely inappropriate.
and from Crooked Timber a study showing that whites are more likely to be in favor of the death penalty when they are told that African-Americans are more likely to be executed.
Please read it before jerking a knee.
My friends, if I didn’t give white people a chance, who would I date?
/tastelesshumor
Can’t speak to the dating, married a few years now. I believe that where we’re going–miscegenation central by 2040–we may not end up needing to do a hell of a lot more than creating multi-racial families in order to beat the racism devil, but on the off chance I’m wrong again:
The civil rights movement’s object wasn’t blacks. It was about whites changing how they treated blacks and others. Blacks didn’t wake up in 1955 and say, “waitaminute, Jim Crow sucks ass.” Whites realized it existed due to the actions of activists (black and white). I had an old white female friend who told me that she had no idea what was going on until she saw protestors attacked with firehoses on television. . . and when she saw that, she broke down and wept.
Exactly. The way we’re going to eliminate racism is to convert a majority of white people into that weeping status. Moral shame is a powerful weapon, and it’s the only one I know of that has worked to convert white Americans into genuine anti-racists.
My mom became that rare creature, a white atheist who has been working against racism since 1961, from organizing the housing and food for the Freedom Riders’ conference at her work-study placement as a dorm hostess. Exposure to the people who were fighting for their own dignity changed her thinking. However, I don’t believe that we have time for 120 million people to have their own road-to-Damascus moments.
Two thoughts about that:
One, I think this is why the media narrative that scripts what most people think is so narrow. It’s not in the interests of those who are benefitting from structural racism today to acknowledge that it’s there. If there is no racism beyond individual acts of malice or bigotry, there’s no story.
More important, though, these are bad times because this amnesia and selective perception are flowing throughout our politics. It’s hard out here, to convince white people that any particular form of structural injustice is worse than any other. (Hence the Big Story about the nooses, because something happened. In contrast to all those other days at the high school in Jena, LA, on which nothing happened.)
So, regardless of the accuracy of ‘white supremacy’ to describe what’s going on every day, it matters a lot that those of us who think this issue is important sell the suit…we can tailor it afterwards. I’m an expert in selling things, and few white people want to buy the truth, which is that we all benefit from white privilege. I know I’m right, but I want to win more than I want other people to agree with me that I’m right. I don’t think it’s immoral to choose terminology, and I’m not above putting lipstick on the pig while pointing out that its shit pollutes.
As to the practical ways to get moral shame to work against racism, I’m hopeful that the coming 12 months of ceaseless racist bashing of immigrants (the visibly brown ones) will be full of great opportunities to sell the suit.
Either that or I’m done with this shit and taking my kid to Canada, where whiteness is accurately perceived as the boring default for embarrassing reasons, not the best and only way to be Canadian.
It’s beginning to look like my paranoia has been justified.
Big frowny face.
I’m hoping for a hard backlash on the immigration thing. I am so sick of factionalism amongst shades of brown and the white poor. When I hear blacks bash illegal immigrants. . . well, let’s just say it taxes the tremendous discipline and politeness I have displayed on this blog. (/sarcasm) I’m a little glad for the immigrant bashing. We need bigots to overplay their hand so that the mainstream is forced to have a “come to Jesus” moment where they have to choose, consciously, what this country will stand for.
And if they choose unwisely and y’all move to Canada, leave your guns and canned foods c/o me because I’m staying right fucking here and I’m gonna need them.
Naw, I’m not bitter.
“And if they choose unwisely and y’all move to Canada, leave your guns and canned foods c/o me because I’m staying right fucking here and I’m gonna need them.”
Oh man, I am SO gonna steal and use this one… as pissed off as I get at the TV bobbleheads’ reports on pretty much a daily basis, I’m with ya on THAT.
From NOC’s linkage, which is an incredibly well put-together piece and shows the complexity and layering:
“One kind of hate feeds another; one open expression of bigotry without significant consequence only provides permission for many more to follow, and the inherent violence of such talk inevitably gives permission for people to act it out.”
Discussion is CRUCIAL to find any sort of possible solutions to racist issues. To NOT discuss is to silently agree with those who commit acts of ignorance and hate. We may live in a rather fucked-up place, but damned if I won’t vote, work and fight for fairness for ALL.
Can’t speak to the dating, married a few years now. I believe that where we’re going–miscegenation central by 2040–we may not end up needing to do a hell of a lot more than creating multi-racial families in order to beat the racism devil, but on the off chance I’m wrong again:
Take it from a land of coffee-coloured famalies - it isn’t quite that easy…