I'm beginning to get the feeling that you're not really reading my posts...
Just as I get the feeling that you're not really thinking about mine, because you've already made up your mind what the problem is, and that the solution is to do pretty much what has been done for the last half-century or so. That hasn't worked, so the solution must be to do it harder :-)
It's not so much that I've made up my mind about what the problem is - it's that this is what the evidence shows the problem to be.
We humans are desperately short-sighted, and we love instant gratification. We build institutions over centuries, and when they crumble, we expect their replacement to spring into being fully formed overnight.
I'll gladly admit that I don't know any solutions. I just think it's possible that we might learn something useful from the experiences of others.
On this point we can agree. My only solution is to be honest about history, and there is a great deal to be learned from the experience of those who have been kept at the fringes of the American mainstream.
@Constance Noring
I apologize in advance, this got long.
Many of the posters on this thread are not United States citizens. We are coming from other countries with other histories, many of which are just as bad, although in different ways. This forum is international, please do not be the "Ugly American abroad" and take a narrow viewpoint.
A harsh term, my northern friend. I do hope you can understand that my insistence on keeping my posts focused on the effects of slavery in the United States is not to marginalize the rest of the continent. My intent was, and remains, to discuss how slavery here in the US (and the subsequent treatment of ex-slaves and their descendants) has had a profound impact on the experience of black Americans, the fruits of which can be seen in the study posted in the OP. It's not that the rest of North America doesn't matter, it's simply that the majority of the conversation has revolved around the United States. (I'll also note that thus far, all of the posters in this thread who have identified as black have been from the United States)
In general, let's also remember that this period in history is very socially conscious, most periods thought nothing of slavery - the Angles (you know, part of Anglo-Saxon) got their name because someone in Rome thought that slaves from there (blond, blue-eyed) looked "angelic". Women especially got carted off as booty after every war - and one of their main jobs in slavery was the production of textiles.
As I've repeatedly acknowledged in my previous posts, slavery is an unfortunately universal idea. But what's the point of trotting out that fact in the midst of a discussion of particular nature of, and impacts of, slavery in the history of the United States, unless it's intended to be a focus-puller? Yes, slavery has existed since the first caveman realized he could force someone else to do his work for him, and it continues to exist to this day, but as I said before, what does that have to do with the racial wealth gap in the United States?
In Canada we get to watch it all from "next door". "Blood and Daring: How Canada Fought the American Civil War and Forged A Nation" by John Boyko explores the American Civil War and how it encouraged Canadian Confederation. You might find it interesting because it presents a contemporary society that treated escaped slaves very differently. They went on to become respected and productive Canadian citizens. More recently we have had many immigrants from the Caribbean (many from Haiti, because they can easily go to Quebec). Many (most?) of them are the descendants of former slaves in areas where black=slave was also the norm historically. One of them became a Governor-General of Canada (the GG is the vice-regal representative of the Queen, so this is a major position). Michaëlle Jean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C3%ABlle_Jean) came to Canada in 1968 (born 1957) as a refugee from Haiti. Growing up in Little Burgundy in Montreal she was not in a "good neighbourhood". But look at her achievements.
Well, let's talk about Canada. Slavery was legal in Canada until 1833, when the British government officially abolished it, but the African slave trade never gained much traction in Canada for the same reason it didn't in the northern United States - climate. The growing season was too short and too cool to make large-scale, labor intensive cash crop agriculture economically feasible the way it was in South and the Caribbean. Without the need for a large, controllable work force, most people found they preferred to white servants instead of buying black slaves, and the desire for legal slavery had mostly petered out north of about Pennsylvania by the turn of the 19th century.
As such, people of African descent make up a much, MUCH smaller percentage of Canada's modern population than the United States' - something like approximately 3% to America's 13% - and the largest segment of that group can trace their family roots to ancestors who fled slavery in the United States. (The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 wound up not only convincing runaways to keep on running, but also prompted some immigration on the part of free Northern blacks who didn't want to risk being 'accidentally' kidnapped and sent south.) The difference in those demographics plays a huge part in the success of the black Canadian community, but ultimately, the absence of the social expectations that went with race-based slavery meant that black Canadians were not forced, by law and custom, to occupy a lower rung of the ladder.
I was able to find
one study dealing with a wealth gap in the Canadian economy, though it only focuses on Ontario. One point of interest I took away from it is that while there does appear to be a generalized wealth gap between whites and blacks in Ontario, it's roughly the same gap that exists between white Canadians and other minority groups.
(There is, of course, the issue of the appalling poverty faced by Canadian First Nations groups, but the US has not a single stone to throw on that score, seeing as we did the exact same thing, and worse. Yet another American Paradox we have trouble swallowing)
So the point of the discussion is - various groups have had very problematic histories - some have managed to pull themselves up and some have not, in any group. Any group will have its achievers and ne'er-do-wells. What does this mean for "People-of-colour" in the US? Beats me. Do those who do well move into a more blended society and the focus is only on those who do not do well and stay put in a ghetto?
norabird addressed this point very well.
Personally, I also look at the US when it puts "Hispanics" into a category and wonder about that - that is anyone from Spain, Portugal, South America, and a lot of the Caribbean - wow. What happened to the "melting pot"?
A couple points here:
For one, the visibly African ancestry of many from the Caribbean means they find themselves coming squarely under the heading of "black folks" in the United States, thanks to our old friend
the one drop rule. And for the other, well - It's kind of like the situation faced by a lot of southern European immigrants to the US back at the turn of the 20th century. Whiteness was more than just skin color, it was social and cultural. And if you had a good enough grasp of English and were willing to set aside 'ethnic' signifiers, you could find the door to the White Club opening, if not to you, then to your children. So it is for many people of Hispanic/Latino/Iberian extraction. However, the fact that many folks from Mexico (and Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and points south) have a high degree of non-European ancestry. This means that they can adopt all the 'white' behaviors they want and still never have the right look to make attaining "whiteness" a simple matter for themselves or their children so long as whiteness is the cultural default. (A problem shared by South Asians, the various ethnicities of the Middle East, and many of our own Native Nations.)
Tribalism and racial bias are the ugly little demons sitting on the shoulder of human nature. We know they're there, and there is not one group of humans in the world that is incapable of expressing them. We have all of human history to look to for the proof of this. The variations lie in the mechanisms by which these divisions and biases manifest themselves within each culture. The root cause of racial bias and the end result of a racial wealth gap within American society may be the same between, for example, African-Americans and Latinos, but each group arrived at those points within our shared culture and heritage through very different circumstances. If we are actually serious about addressing the root causes of these inequalities, we need to also address and honestly discuss the circumstances and histories directly relevant to the people impacted by these inequalities. These are unique to each group.
Right now, even despite the international flavor of this community, the major talking points of this thread are related to the racial wealth gap that impacts African-Americans in the United States. This means we have to talk honestly about how that gap was established in the first place, and
that means acknowledging the impact of treating an entire race of people like livestock from the cradle to the grave for approximately 200 years. It took us another 100 years just to get us from the 13th Amendment to the Civil Rights Act, a century of violence, fraud, marginalization, and rage. It will likely take us another 50 years before a majority of the population in this country is willing to admit and openly discuss in an honest and adult manner the impact and legacy that the sins of our forefathers had upon us as a nation. This isn't about white guilt. It's about owning up to our history and learning from it.
It's been frequently mentioned in this thread that education is the first and best starting place for addressing inequality. Maybe more African-Americans need to learn how to manage their money. And maybe
everybody needs to learn more history.