The Racial Wealth Gap:Mustachians of Color, feel free to share your experiences!

[cbgg]

I see everyday how class and race intersect to create privilege. Most blacks will never have access to the jobs, clients and connections to launch a successful business or career. Let's take real estate for example. The vast  majority of black real estate agents I know cannot get the opportunities to sell high end real estate...Poor minorities are so cut off and isolated living almost in an apartheid state that they often don't see examples of much success.  Also African Americans have such a deep distrust and in some cases fear of white America that it can handicap them psychologically making it difficult to seek out opportunities they see as unattainable...We also cannot ignore the profound impact that the media's portrayal of black people have on blacks and whites alike.

Yes yes and yes!!!!!

It is striking and deeply concerning that we see certain ethnic minorities struggle more than others in the USA.  Think people of Jewish and Chinese dissent vs. African Americans and Native Americans.  All have seen deep discrimination inside and outside American in different ways.  But the results 50 years post the civil rights movement and desegregation have been very different.  Maybe it's just a timeline issue and in another 50 years the wounds of the past will have healed and we won't see this problem in the statistics.  But I think it has a heck of a lot to do with the softer form of segregation that subsidized housing projects, drug/war on crime/incarceration policy, reservations, etc have created.  Good intent (maybe) but terrible effects in real life.

The result is a mainstream culture that excludes important part of the population and creates an unhealthy sense of "other" that is bought into by people on both sides of the line.  Of course this is a huge step up from where we were decades ago, but you can't deny that there is a systemic problem (likely an unintentional consequence of well meaning policy) when you look at the statistics for poverty, incarcerations, addiction, unwanted pregnancy. 

Are all people given the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?  Sure.  There are many examples of people who do this and come from all variety of backgrounds.  But to deny that there are systemic barriers that make it harder for some to do this than for others is to either be totally blind of the statistics or to actually believe that someone's race makes them lazy/weak/immoral/etc.

[cbgg]

It's the whole question of whether history several generations and more back is really a plight today, or an excuse.

Problem is, we just aren't that many generations forward yet.  Discrimination against many ethnic and religious groups was deep, systematic, and legally enforced as recently as 50 years ago in pretty much all of what's now considered the developed world economies.  It's not generations and generations back, although it tends to feel that way for some folks.

I grew up with a lot of kids who lived on native reservations here in Canada.  As a kid it seemed strange to me that they lived so differently than the mainstream of our school.  Many of their parents had substance abuse problems, for example.  As an adult I know that many of their parents were pulled from their homes (either by force or manipulation) and put into a horrific mission school system that separated them from their families, made them easy targets for physical/sexual/emotional abuse, cut them off from their culture and language, and so on and so forth.  Not so hard to understand why they grew up with a very different life than I did, knowing how recent the discrimination has been.

[iris lily]

And who knows how many parents might start caring if education and childcare became less of a burden?

You know, I've avoided replying to this post because it's impossible to challenge the assumptions behind it and I just tried to avoid it. But I can't any longer.

So let me just point out my own observation of life: never in the history of the world has birth control been so universally available in this country. Why people continue to have children who then seem to "burden" them is beyond me.

I don't have children. Didn't want them, don't like 'em in my life 24/7. It really is that simple.

[Gin1984]

And who knows how many parents might start caring if education and childcare became less of a burden?

You know, I've avoided replying to this post because it's impossible to challenge the assumptions behind it and I just tried to avoid it. But I can't any longer.

So let me just point out my own observation of life: never in the history of the world has birth control been so universally available in this country. Why people continue to have children who then seem to "burden" them is beyond me.

I don't have children. Didn't want them, don't like 'em in my life 24/7. It really is that simple.

Actually birth control is less available now than it was thirty years ago especially to the poor.

[Bakari]

There are still some states that deliberately avoid teaching young people that birth control works, or how it works, with the idea that if they keep it a secret, no one will have sex.  The fact that this is indisputably wrong doesn't seem to matter.

There are also still some religious / "moral" beliefs that say its unethical


And, well, some people are just stupid.  Especially in combination with alcohol, drugs and/or youth.

Plus, even when you use it, it doesn't always work.  Lucky for me, in my state the back-up plan is pretty easy to come by, so I didn't become a parent with my (otherwise) platonic friend when I was 21, but we learned the hard way that the pill really is ineffective if she is less than 100% consistent about taking it everyday at the same time of day.

[Constance Noring]

I will preface the following statement with the acknowledgement that I too have chosen to avail myself of the wonders of modern birth control to avoid motherhood, and at 34, I see no reason to stop now. So having said that, I must say that I find the implication, frequently raised in discussions of education and social programs, that the children of people who have made the 'wrong' sort of choices are to be seen as a burden and a punishment to be appalling. From a societal prospective, all children, regardless of their parentage, are our collective legacy. To take such a punitive view of the next generation strikes me as extremely counter-productive for society as a whole.

[MayDay]

There are still some states that deliberately avoid teaching young people that birth control works, or how it works, with the idea that if they keep it a secret, no one will have sex.  The fact that this is indisputably wrong doesn't seem to matter.

There are also still some religious / "moral" beliefs that say its unethical


This times a million! 

[MayDay]

I will chime in with my opinion of how the school choice system played out in Mpls/St. Paul.  The city schools are a combo of neighborhood schools that you get into automatically, public schools that you get into by choice (typically these are something special, like Montessori, IB, science, etc) and charter schools.  Involved parents who care about education will put their children in choice or charter schools, even if they live in bad neighborhoods and are poor.  Parents who don't care or are unable to out the energy into the school choice process do nothing, and their kid goes to the neighborhood school.  Some neighborhood schools are great, some obviously suck.  Navigating the school choice process is confusing and time consuming. 

The idea that if parents self-select out of bad neighborhood schools resulting in fewer kids and thus a better education is false.  If a school's population drops enough, they will close the school or turn it into a different type of school.  They aren't just going to let the class size drop to 15 when the rest of the district is at 25. 

A friend who lives in a mixed income/mixed race suburb loves the school her kids go to because it is a combo.  It is half neighborhood kids, and it is in a poor neighborhood.  The other half is choice, which is elected by almost exclusively wealthy, white parents.  They have a well regarded science/math curriculum to draw in the wealthy parents.  So you get a big group of parents who care (and presumably thus kids who care) and the neighborhood kids get those benefits without their own parents having to do anything. 

[Daley]

Which brings us back to Constance's premise. We as a society on a whole need to address and honestly discuss some very uncomfortable topics regarding this country's history and exactly how our actions have directly contributed to shaping the society we have today.

Constance has some other comments kind of related to this, and I'll go into more detail when I respond to hers below. However, I think that Daley touched on an interesting point. The emphasis I added to his quote above is that point. Why is this such an uncomfortable topic? I don't take responsibility for anything someone else does, including my relatives, and I haven't contributed to the issue. It's history, it's fact, and how you feel doesn't change what actually happened, it only affects what you do going forward. I'm not advocating ignorance, but why can't we have a discussion about the history of slavery without all of the righteous indignation, anger, or guilt?

This is the part of the discussion where we need to start getting into a bit of psychology and philosophy.

It's an uncomfortable topic with most people because it stabs at the heart of the little evil bits of human nature that are simply inescapable and mostly unacknowledged. For better or worse, we as human adults are wired in such a way as to be more receptive to similar people, and it starts on the most fundamental level of reproductive preferences. As people tend to gravitate towards the familiar, these pairings become the foundation of communities, which build societies. People also have a gaping hole in their self-awareness to their negative qualities, and frequently tend to get defensive when those negative qualities are pointed out to them. These core elements to the human condition make the topic difficult. It acknowledges what happens when we internalize these preferences to their most extreme outcome, and highlights the capacity for evil within all of us. It can be uncomfortable for many people because with close examination and understanding, it acts as a funhouse mirror accentuating our own flaws and shortcomings, and people don't like to acknowledge those sorts of things. After all, it's no coincidence that it's easier to judge others than it is yourself, and it's difficult for people to admit when they're wrong.

Some of you might point out that because children often do not show these sorts of biases, that this sort of behavior is taught. What is actually taught is how we react to these preferences through social cues and learned behavior, not the internal instinct that forms as we develop past the age of innocence and the reproductive urges kick in.

We also have to deal with the issue that one simply cannot live in a social vacuum. We all contribute to the movements of society as a whole, for good or for evil, and those choices are carried forward through the generations. Choices and actions always have consequences that impact more than just yourself. You do and you always will have influence upon society on some level, and to say otherwise is to reinforce a fallacy perpetuated by a certain author who's developed a certain culture built upon the inability to understand and grasp basic human nature while celebrating two of the most dangerous bits of base human nature - pride and greed. That particular philosophy is rampant around these parts.

Not to pick on you specifically, but, "I don't take responsibility for anything someone else does, including my relatives, and I haven't contributed to the issue," is a great example of this paradox for most people. Even this choice has consequences on others lives. It's great that people can acknowledge this point and internalize it for the sake of more rational discourse, but many people who are capable of this then fall short of owning the consequences of this choice itself despite it being a consciously made decision. It comes across a bit Inception-y, but do you get where I'm going with this? We can never actually wash our hands of a situation, we simply act or react. Culture, society, education, ideologies, personal choices... none of this happens in a vacuum. Even the simplest decisions made stand upon millennia of history and the collective shoulders of our ancestors. Buying a bag of Cheetos may appear to be an individual choice, but there is collective influence spanning centuries behind that decision. That influence begins to be revealed by asking the seemingly simple question, "How did that bag of Cheetos get there in the first place?"

Even ignoring things individually is a choice with collective consequences.

But to put it simply, it's uncomfortable because of our lizard brains, our capacity for evil, our short-sightedness in recognizing the long-term impact of choices made, and the emotional difficulty of introspection and owning our actions. This makes the topic weighty and unavoidably trucks along a lot of baggage for a lot of people. If we're to genuinely have an intellectually honest discussion about history, we can't ignore this fact and we have to weigh it as part of the larger problem at hand. It also makes the seemingly simple proposal I made for moving forward with progress on how to address the topic at hand nearly herculean in scope to achieve.

[...]  keeping that link to the past close to one's heart helps reinforce group identity, for better and for worse.

For the specific case of African-Americans, kidnapping, forced immigration, and sparse record keeping meant their family history would be in many cases a blank slate. Add to that the fact that slaveholders sought to reinforce their slaves' status by forbidding African cultural, social, and religious practices, and you have the development of a culture that has had to fight for every scrap of continuity it can get.

Being marginally anti-social, I don't quite get this on a personal level, but I guess I can understand that if one feels something was taken from them, regardless of the value, they will try to hold on to that. Predictable Irrationality at it's finest. But when someone is so set on differentiating themselves, regardless of the reason, is the results of that means they don't have the same networking opportunities really and issue that needs to be addressed?

You're right, networking opportunities are a fundamental issue, but one needs to understand why those limitations develop and how they impact modern society. The afore mentioned human nature bit is only a part of the larger whole to be addressed. History and the consequences of slavery in this country within that framework are another portion, along with learned and reinforced behaviors.

I do wonder if talking about slavery is on point when we in fact have ongoing racist attitudes that are still pervasive.    While slavery may have some historical cause/effect on the present day I'd think continuing racism is a bigger factor.

I like to say that the study of history is like therapy for the human race. We talk about the things that happened to us in the past so we can figure out why we do what we do in the present. In order to understand those racist attitudes, we have to go back to the why. And in this case, the why is, in its simplest form, slavery.

I like the idea of history as therapy. But in this particular instance, I think the conversation itself may be causing more issues than it solves. I remember not knowing that racism was a thing until someone talked about how to stop it. I just assumed that someone who didn't recognize merit was just stupid...and I'm still right. Once we stop acknowledging it as some type of special thing that deserves extra attention, we can dismiss those who are racist as the idiots they are, and leave it at that. Hence my comments above regarding not originally participating in this thread.

In some matters, you are right... but this is where being open and honest about ourselves and the topics at hand can help. It's about setting expectations. Unfortunately, most people can't actually get to this rational point in perspective and approach. It also creates a bit of a catch-22. We can't start progressing towards a solution on how to best approach and address inequality withing the black community within this country without acknowledging the very real impact that centuries of racial chattel slavery has had in our culture, yet most people can't consciously talk on these points without being drug down by the very same baggage we need to examine to help better shape and influence our decisions and choices moving forward wisely.

I'm a diagnostician by gift and by trade. It's easy to recognize the break points and propose a solution for me... and don't get me wrong, the solution floated lies within this bigger picture embrace of the situation. Execution is the tricky part when most people are happy with things the way they are or would rather take an easier approach. What is needed is to help restore dignity to people collectively. It takes a lot of work and a variety of approaches to do so. There's no one-size fits all approach here. We can perhaps work in broader strokes to help more people at a whack, but there still requires a unique approach to each group.

Education is an answer, but I think the number one lesson that needs to be taught is self-awareness, or how not to be a dick. Once you get that basic part, you can then tear apart social cues and rebuild in more positive directions. However, this itself opens another philosophical and even religious can of worms.

...it's not easy, but nothing of value ever is.

[Jamesqf]

For better or worse, we as human adults are wired in such a way as to be more receptive to similar people, and it starts on the most fundamental level of reproductive preferences.

Did you actually read that article?  It has very little to say about racial/ethnic differences,  much more about personal preferences*. When it does address ethnic differences, in the graph of eHarmony data, we see that a) even the greatest differences aren't that large (under 20%); and b) white men are pretty much neutral in their preferences.

*Which is entirely reasonable: why would I want a long-term relationship with someone who doesn't share at least some of my interests?  It also suggests that what shows up as a racial/ethnic preference may not really be one at all, but instead a secondary effect of different cultures.   

In some matters, you are right... but this is where being open and honest about ourselves and the topics at hand can help. It's about setting expectations. Unfortunately, most people can't actually get to this rational point in perspective and approach. It also creates a bit of a catch-22. We can't start progressing towards a solution on how to best approach and address inequality withing the black community within this country without acknowledging the very real impact that centuries of racial chattel slavery has had in our culture, yet most people can't consciously talk on these points without being drug down by the very same baggage we need to examine to help better shape and influence our decisions and choices moving forward wisely.

Once again, the people who'd like to have this discussion won't even start to discuss things unless you buy into their false world view of slavery having been uniquely American, and/or of it having been exclusively something that Europeans did to Africans.  It's the old garbage in, garbage out rule again.  As for such a discussion being uncomfortable, IMHO it's only so because of the impossibility of getting these people to move off their starting point, kind of like discussing evolution with a creationist.

[jordanread]

Daley, I'm in the process of thinking through my response now. Be there shortly.

In some matters, you are right... but this is where being open and honest about ourselves and the topics at hand can help. It's about setting expectations. Unfortunately, most people can't actually get to this rational point in perspective and approach. It also creates a bit of a catch-22. We can't start progressing towards a solution on how to best approach and address inequality withing the black community within this country without acknowledging the very real impact that centuries of racial chattel slavery has had in our culture, yet most people can't consciously talk on these points without being drug down by the very same baggage we need to examine to help better shape and influence our decisions and choices moving forward wisely.

Once again, the people who'd like to have this discussion won't even start to discuss things unless you buy into their false world view of slavery having been uniquely American, and/or of it having been exclusively something that Europeans did to Africans.  It's the old garbage in, garbage out rule again.  As for such a discussion being uncomfortable, IMHO it's only so because of the impossibility of getting these people to move off their starting point, kind of like discussing evolution with a creationist.

James, I just want to make sure that I am understanding what you are saying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is going back to your earlier comment regarding the separation of racism and slavery, as well as the stuff you were referring to as far as it being a global issue, right? I'm going off of memory here, so I just want to be sure. If I am off though, can you provide some context (even if it's just a link to your comment from earlier)?

[jordanread]

Daley, thanks for the response. I was going to just address things point by point, but there were a few things I wanted to address that deserved special mention.

...a fallacy perpetuated by a certain author who's developed a certain culture built upon the inability to understand and grasp basic human nature while celebrating two of the most dangerous bits of base human nature - pride and greed.

This made me LOL. That is the most specific generic description of anything that I've ever seen, and I salute you. :-D
I don't necessarily agree...but,

[...]little evil bits of human nature that are simply inescapable and mostly unacknowledged[...]
[...]the capacity for evil within all of us[...]
[...]for good or for evil[...]

I was pretty sure that we had some fundamental differences in our outlooks, but went and read your SOF on your blog, just to be sure. Not as extreme as I thought initially (not sure why, probably an incorrect assumption I made), but still there. I'll address the more specific arguments below, but from a general standpoint (as it relates to this discussion), I don't see value in labeling things good or evil, nor do I think that people have little bits of each side that cause them to act in a certain manner. I am a huge believer in personal accountability, and I have a fundamental distrust of anything that takes away from that. My responses below will not spend much time addressing the good/evil bit, but rather the stuff around it. Just a head's up.

Which brings us back to Constance's premise. We as a society on a whole need to address and honestly discuss some very uncomfortable topics regarding this country's history and exactly how our actions have directly contributed to shaping the society we have today.

Constance has some other comments kind of related to this, and I'll go into more detail when I respond to hers below. However, I think that Daley touched on an interesting point. The emphasis I added to his quote above is that point. Why is this such an uncomfortable topic? I don't take responsibility for anything someone else does, including my relatives, and I haven't contributed to the issue. It's history, it's fact, and how you feel doesn't change what actually happened, it only affects what you do going forward. I'm not advocating ignorance, but why can't we have a discussion about the history of slavery without all of the righteous indignation, anger, or guilt?

This is the part of the discussion where we need to start getting into a bit of psychology and philosophy.

It's an uncomfortable topic with most people because it stabs at the heart of the little evil bits of human nature that are simply inescapable and mostly unacknowledged. For better or worse, we as human adults are wired in such a way as to be more receptive to similar people, and it starts on the most fundamental level of reproductive preferences. As people tend to gravitate towards the familiar, these pairings become the foundation of communities, which build societies. People also have a gaping hole in their self-awareness to their negative qualities, and frequently tend to get defensive when those negative qualities are pointed out to them. These core elements to the human condition make the topic difficult. It acknowledges what happens when we internalize these preferences to their most extreme outcome, and highlights the capacity for evil within all of us. It can be uncomfortable for many people because with close examination and understanding, it acts as a funhouse mirror accentuating our own flaws and shortcomings, and people don't like to acknowledge those sorts of things. After all, it's no coincidence that it's easier to judge others than it is yourself, and it's difficult for people to admit when they're wrong.

Okay, I can't relate to why it's uncomfortable, but I can kind of understand what you are saying. There are some thoughts regarding getting kids interested in history by capitalizing on emotions, but this isn't the place…maybe later. I don't know how the article relates, though. It was interesting, but I didn't find it all that useful from a big picture standpoint. However, what you said next is really interesting. If you follow society back, at the most fundamental level, I get what you are saying regarding people being attracted to someone similar. We're evolutionarily risk-averse, and that makes sense. As far as the self-awareness piece goes, I believe that there are studies that back up your statements, but can't remember off the top of my head. That being said, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that says to me you are right, so I won't argue the point (for now :P). So I am understanding that you think it's a difficult conversation to have, not because it should be, but because people get freaked out about their own weaknesses, and as a defense, take their values to extremes (i.e. the community thing you were talking about). Am I understanding you correctly?

Some of you might point out that because children often do not show these sorts of biases, that this sort of behavior is taught. What is actually taught is how we react to these preferences through social cues and learned behavior, not the internal instinct that forms as we develop past the age of innocence and the reproductive urges kick in.

I think I get what you are saying, but it doesn't necessarily jive with the whole "we prefer people who are like us" argument above. Your first sentence seems to say that you don't agree that racist behavior is taught, but then it seems like you are saying that the behavior isn't taught directly, but more through external forces (i.e. being taught). I don't necessarily disagree, but I think I'm missing your point. My experience is that children don't show those sorts of biases, and they are taught. I just thought of something you said though, and thought it was interesting…you said that we "react to preferences". I thought that was an interesting choice of words. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but in reality, what we are reacting to is a lack of preference. That is something that definitely needs to be looked at, because if what you are saying is the truth, then we are teaching the next generation that this behavior is okay. See below for a general rant on why I think my approach is the best :D.

We also have to deal with the issue that one simply cannot live in a social vacuum. We all contribute to the movements of society as a whole, for good or for evil, and those choices are carried forward through the generations. Choices and actions always have consequences that impact more than just yourself. You do and you always will have influence upon society on some level, and to say otherwise is to reinforce a fallacy perpetuated by a certain author who's developed a certain culture built upon the inability to understand and grasp basic human nature while celebrating two of the most dangerous bits of base human nature - pride and greed. That particular philosophy is rampant around these parts.

No disagreement here. A single person can, has, and will continue to impact the world.

Not to pick on you specifically, but, "I don't take responsibility for anything someone else does, including my relatives, and I haven't contributed to the issue," is a great example of this paradox for most people. Even this choice has consequences on others lives. It's great that people can acknowledge this point and internalize it for the sake of more rational discourse, but many people who are capable of this then fall short of owning the consequences of this choice itself despite it being a consciously made decision. It comes across a bit Inception-y, but do you get where I'm going with this? We can never actually wash our hands of a situation, we simply act or react. Culture, society, education, ideologies, personal choices... none of this happens in a vacuum. Even the simplest decisions made stand upon millennia of history and the collective shoulders of our ancestors. Buying a bag of Cheetos may appear to be an individual choice, but there is collective influence spanning centuries behind that decision. That influence begins to be revealed by asking the seemingly simple question, "How did that bag of Cheetos get there in the first place?"

First, I wouldn't comment if I was worried about being "picked on" specifically ;-).
Secondly, I don't see it as a paradox. I'm getting that you feel that failure to take accountability is failure to recognize a problem, which is definitely not the case. I want to make myself clear here: racism is a problem/issue. I'm only arguing the fix. The funny thing is, I can't think of anything besides racism where I think that the solution is to stop making it a thing. We are giving racism power by separating it from other stupid behaviors. You said yourself that it's the external influence that creates the behavior, so why not treat it like the other stupid shit we see in this world?

Even ignoring things individually is a choice with collective consequences.

That's exactly why I think it's the best route!!! I hope the consequences have a ripple effect.

But to put it simply, it's uncomfortable because of our lizard brains, our capacity for evil, our short-sightedness in recognizing the long-term impact of choices made, and the emotional difficulty of introspection and owning our actions. This makes the topic weighty and unavoidably trucks along a lot of baggage for a lot of people. If we're to genuinely have an intellectually honest discussion about history, we can't ignore this fact and we have to weigh it as part of the larger problem at hand. It also makes the seemingly simple proposal I made for moving forward with progress on how to address the topic at hand nearly herculean in scope to achieve.

And this kind of touches on what I was referring to earlier (I'll argue later about our capacity for "evil" :D). The highlighted sentence above is almost accurate. The only issue I take with it when we are discussing racism and slavery and history is the last little bit: "owning our actions". I'm not saying we aren't bad at that, what I'm saying is that the operative word is "OUR". I truly believe in owning one's actions. What is being discussed here is something else, though. This isn't about accountability, because that means that you could have done something to stop the behavior. What you are talking about is guilt…a fucking useless emotion.

Now, you did touch on something interesting…we can't ignore the fact that people do stupid, illogical stuff, and we do have to weigh it as part of the larger problem…unless we are continuously creating the problem. Racism is inherently stupid, so why do we judge it differently than just stupid people?

[...]  keeping that link to the past close to one's heart helps reinforce group identity, for better and for worse.

For the specific case of African-Americans, kidnapping, forced immigration, and sparse record keeping meant their family history would be in many cases a blank slate. Add to that the fact that slaveholders sought to reinforce their slaves' status by forbidding African cultural, social, and religious practices, and you have the development of a culture that has had to fight for every scrap of continuity it can get.

Being marginally anti-social, I don't quite get this on a personal level, but I guess I can understand that if one feels something was taken from them, regardless of the value, they will try to hold on to that. Predictable Irrationality at it's finest. But when someone is so set on differentiating themselves, regardless of the reason, is the results of that means they don't have the same networking opportunities really and issue that needs to be addressed?

You're right, networking opportunities are a fundamental issue, but one needs to understand why those limitations develop and how they impact modern society. The afore mentioned human nature bit is only a part of the larger whole to be addressed. History and the consequences of slavery in this country within that framework are another portion, along with learned and reinforced behaviors.

First off, I'm a bit biased in this. Networking is bullshit. Necessary currently, but bullshit. I won't even address the stupidity regarding structuring a society around who you know instead of what you can do.

You so almost got it right here though. You are talking as if the learned and reinforced behaviors are part of the issue, which I agree with. But you are also talking about history and the "consequences of slavery" as something that should be taken into account…but I still can't figure out why.

I do wonder if talking about slavery is on point when we in fact have ongoing racist attitudes that are still pervasive.    While slavery may have some historical cause/effect on the present day I'd think continuing racism is a bigger factor.

I like to say that the study of history is like therapy for the human race. We talk about the things that happened to us in the past so we can figure out why we do what we do in the present. In order to understand those racist attitudes, we have to go back to the why. And in this case, the why is, in its simplest form, slavery.

I like the idea of history as therapy. But in this particular instance, I think the conversation itself may be causing more issues than it solves. I remember not knowing that racism was a thing until someone talked about how to stop it. I just assumed that someone who didn't recognize merit was just stupid...and I'm still right. Once we stop acknowledging it as some type of special thing that deserves extra attention, we can dismiss those who are racist as the idiots they are, and leave it at that. Hence my comments above regarding not originally participating in this thread.

In some matters, you are right... but this is where being open and honest about ourselves and the topics at hand can help. It's about setting expectations. Unfortunately, most people can't actually get to this rational point in perspective and approach. It also creates a bit of a catch-22. We can't start progressing towards a solution on how to best approach and address inequality within the black community within this country without acknowledging the very real impact that centuries of racial chattel slavery has had in our culture, […]

First off, I think you started off very right here. However, you very quickly went into setting expectations. When the previous generation sets expectations, stuff gets through. Let's say that we tell a child that racism is bad. If the kid doesn't know what racism is, as you explain the expectation, you recreate the fact that judging someone based on something as stupid as their skin color or looks is okay. That's how we got here in the first place. How is continuing this bullshit a solution? CHECK THIS SHIT

I'm a diagnostician by gift and by trade. It's easy to recognize the break points and propose a solution for me... and don't get me wrong, the solution floated lies within this bigger picture embrace of the situation. Execution is the tricky part when most people are happy with things the way they are or would rather take an easier approach. What is needed is to help restore dignity to people collectively. It takes a lot of work and a variety of approaches to do so. There's no one-size fits all approach here. We can perhaps work in broader strokes to help more people at a whack, but there still requires a unique approach to each group.

 I'd really like a concise version of the solution floated. There has been a discussion, but I don't recall anything being determined as the best solution. That's why we are here, so would you mind telling me what I missed?

Education is an answer, but I think the number one lesson that needs to be taught is self-awareness, or how not to be a dick. Once you get that basic part, you can then tear apart social cues and rebuild in more positive directions. However, this itself opens another philosophical and even religious can of worms.

Education is the answer, regardless of the issue. Self-awareness would be an awesome thing to teach. "Not being a dick" is more subjective.
This is more of a comment for another time, but why would we teach someone to do anything based on what someone else thinks??? How is that helpful or productive?

...it's not easy, but nothing of value ever is.

And with this point, I agree 100%

[Jamesqf]

James, I just want to make sure that I am understanding what you are saying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is going back to your earlier comment regarding the separation of racism and slavery, as well as the stuff you were referring to as far as it being a global issue, right? I'm going off of memory here, so I just want to be sure. If I am off though, can you provide some context (even if it's just a link to your comment from earlier)?

Sure.  I'll just hit some major points, maybe with some Wikipedia links for anyone interested in looking further for themselves.  (Not that I take Wikipedia as an authority, you understand, but it usually has enough info to give you an idea of where to start looking for more.)

First, the idea that slavery was somehow a uniquely American experience is utterly false. Prior to the industrial revolution, it was the way most advanced societies obtained labor.  Egypt, Greece, Rome - all ran on slave labor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity 

The African slave trade was not a creation of the Europeans or Americans, but of the Arabs.  They were not racist, but would happily enslave any non-Muslim that they could reach, raiding along the Mediterranean coast, the Black Sea, and as far afield as Ireland (see e.g. the raid on Baltimore) and Iceland.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Many other countries had slave systems similar to that in the US, and in some it lasted longer than in the US.  For instance, Brazil abolished it in 1888: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Brazil

Second, the idea that slavery and racism are inextricably linked, or that racism always follows our current practices, is likewise false.  Most if not all cultures have similar attitudes towards excluded groups: only the criteria for exclusion differ.  The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and many others considered all foreigners to be inferior, if not actually subhuman.  The Hindus had their caste system and untouchables, Japan had the burakumin, in much of Europe it was the Jews...

[sheepstache]

I like the idea of history as therapy. But in this particular instance, I think the conversation itself may be causing more issues than it solves. I remember not knowing that racism was a thing until someone talked about how to stop it. I just assumed that someone who didn't recognize merit was just stupid...and I'm still right. Once we stop acknowledging it as some type of special thing that deserves extra attention, we can dismiss those who are racist as the idiots they are, and leave it at that. Hence my comments above regarding not originally participating in this thread.

[/quote]

I love this.  Love it.  "I don't have personal experience with racism and have only a superficial understanding of how it works but I have the solution."

In some matters, you are right... but this is where being open and honest about ourselves and the topics at hand can help. It's about setting expectations. Unfortunately, most people can't actually get to this rational point in perspective and approach. It also creates a bit of a catch-22. We can't start progressing towards a solution on how to best approach and address inequality within the black community within this country without acknowledging the very real impact that centuries of racial chattel slavery has had in our culture, […]

First off, I think you started off very right here. However, you very quickly went into setting expectations. When the previous generation sets expectations, stuff gets through. Let's say that we tell a child that racism is bad. If the kid doesn't know what racism is, as you explain the expectation, you recreate the fact that judging someone based on something as stupid as their skin color or looks is okay. That's how we got here in the first place. How is continuing this bullshit a solution? CHECK THIS SHIT

[/quote]

I know that was my first thought when I saw Schindler's List.  Wow, this is going to create a lot of anti-semitism; I think the best course is for Jews to just get over it.

The African slave trade was not a creation of the Europeans or Americans, but of the Arabs.  They were not racist, but would happily enslave any non-Muslim that they could reach, raiding along the Mediterranean coast, the Black Sea, and as far afield as Ireland (see e.g. the raid on Baltimore) and Iceland.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Huh.  So people from Ireland and Iceland were brought as slaves but we can't visually spot the difference between those people and people who came here freely . . . huh, I wonder if that might have any historical bearing on anything...

As for such a discussion being uncomfortable, IMHO it's only so because of the impossibility of getting these people to move off their starting point, kind of like discussing evolution with a creationist.

Or like, say, discussing racism in the US with someone who doesn't bother understanding what white privilege is.

[jordanread]

I love this.  Love it.  "I don't have personal experience with racism and have only a superficial understanding of how it works but I have the solution."

Only a superficial understanding of how it works? I'm pretty sure that it "works" by judging someone/treating them differently based on their race (which I guess is pretty much the definition of superficial - skin deep). As far as the "solution" goes, it's something that I think gets overlooked, and was just seeing what people thought of it, and if there are merits to it. How much of the racism issue is created by those trying to fix it? I'm not sure how it was meant to work, but I'm sure your responses were designed to continue the conversation and be productive, too.

I know that was my first thought when I saw Schindler's List.  Wow, this is going to create a lot of anti-semitism; I think the best course is for Jews to just get over it.

I think you are missing my point. Getting over it...kind of what I was saying, except for the whole part where what I was talking about is changing your own behavior, not anyone else's.

As for such a discussion being uncomfortable, IMHO it's only so because of the impossibility of getting these people to move off their starting point, kind of like discussing evolution with a creationist.

Or like, say, discussing racism in the US with someone who doesn't bother understanding what white privilege is.

I looked it up. It's all the good things that happen to white people but not to black people. So "white privilege" is actually what happens when racism isn't there. And yet now somehow it's related to race.  This is what I was talking about. As a society, we are actually so intent on making sure that racism is being discussed, that we now have race related terms for the lack of racism...

Personally, all of this white privilege that I get set the stage for how I treat everyone. I apparently missed the memo where it was only meant to be for white people. I might lose my membership for that slip up.

[Jamesqf]

The African slave trade was not a creation of the Europeans or Americans, but of the Arabs.  They were not racist, but would happily enslave any non-Muslim that they could reach, raiding along the Mediterranean coast, the Black Sea, and as far afield as Ireland (see e.g. the raid on Baltimore) and Iceland.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Huh.  So people from Ireland and Iceland were brought as slaves but we can't visually spot the difference between those people and people who came here freely . . . huh, I wonder if that might have any historical bearing on anything...

There you go, either not reading or not understanding the links I posted.  The Irish and other Europeans were kept as slaves in the Islamic world, not 'here'.

Or like, say, discussing racism in the US with someone who doesn't bother understanding what white privilege is.

I understand perfectly well what you think white privilege is.  What I have been trying to tell you is that I, and a hell of a lot of other white people, are still waiting for our privilege to show up. 

PS: This is a good example of what I said earlier, about certain parties being unwilling to have a discussion that doesn't start by accepting their dogma as unassailable truth.

[Daley]

Daley, thanks for the response.

And thank you for your own.

Now it's my turn to ask for your patience in replying. I just got home from a day of helping to herd cats, and I'd like to take more time than I have currently to respond. Appreciate it.

[sheepstache]

The African slave trade was not a creation of the Europeans or Americans, but of the Arabs.  They were not racist, but would happily enslave any non-Muslim that they could reach, raiding along the Mediterranean coast, the Black Sea, and as far afield as Ireland (see e.g. the raid on Baltimore) and Iceland.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Huh.  So people from Ireland and Iceland were brought as slaves but we can't visually spot the difference between those people and people who came here freely . . . huh, I wonder if that might have any historical bearing on anything...

There you go, either not reading or not understanding the links I posted.  The Irish and other Europeans were kept as slaves in the Islamic world, not 'here'.

I understood the material, I guess I misunderstood the point you were trying to make with it.  White-looking people did get brought over as slaves, a small percentage, and a lot as indentured servants, so I hear that in arguments sometimes.  If you are just making the point that slavery was a world wide thing, of course that's true but I don't see the relevance.  Shifting the blame to the slave traders doesn't change the role of the people who bought and maintained the slaves.  The fact that slavery was a worldwide thing doesn't necessarily entail anything about how it affects any given country it existed in.  I would maintain that the visual distinction between the descendants is unique to only some places and has an effect.  I would say that slavery can be practiced in many, many different ways so it doesn't make sense to lump them together.  Slavery doesn't always result in destruction of language and culture.  I would further say that generational poverty is real and that it may affect other countries where slavery existed but without a large enough population or visual segregation it might simply not be studied. 

In short I think the argument that we need to discuss the role that slavery played in America in order to root out the problems it caused is completely unrelated to any suggestion that we are the only ones who ever practiced it or that it happened uniquely to Africans.  Nobody is suggesting that is the reason it needs to be discussed.  To argue against it based on that is therefore just a derailing tactic.

Or like, say, discussing racism in the US with someone who doesn't bother understanding what white privilege is.

I understand perfectly well what you think white privilege is.  What I have been trying to tell you is that I, and a hell of a lot of other white people, are still waiting for our privilege to show up. 

PS: This is a good example of what I said earlier, about certain parties being unwilling to have a discussion that doesn't start by accepting their dogma as unassailable truth.

The point at which you refer to other people's arguments as "garbage" might be the point at which you stop and really ask yourself if you understand them rather than assuming they're the ones with the dogmatism problem.  You don't, according to what I've seen you write, understand what white privilege is.  It sounds like JordanRead might.  If you think that your race has had no effect on your life, then, *ding ding ding* you have racial privilege!  Other people don't have the privilege of thinking that.  In fact, it's quite possible that your race has had no effect and that other people think that your race has had no effect.  Get the door, that's more of your white privilege knocking.

JordanRead slightly misses the point in making the point that this is how everyone should be treated.  No one disagrees with that, but ignoring that white people have these privileges and others don't and ignoring the benefits that you have already experienced in life because of this is like some Marie-Antoinette-level obliviousness.  Being able to ignore race is a nice thing that white people get to do and ignoring that they're ignoring race  or downplaying the importance of that is like the whitest white person reasoning of all.  Acknowledging that ignoring the origins of your perspective is different from having an objective perspective is something that everyone with privilege can do that will really help things.  (It has nothing to do with rending your clothing with guilt and self-recrimination like some people seem to assume.)

Only a superficial understanding of how it works? I'm pretty sure that it "works" by judging someone/treating them differently based on their race (which I guess is pretty much the definition of superficial - skin deep).

Really?  The many varied and well-articulated posts in this thread didn't get across to you that it might be a bit more complicated than that? 

I know that was my first thought when I saw Schindler's List.  Wow, this is going to create a lot of anti-semitism; I think the best course is for Jews to just get over it.

I think you are missing my point. Getting over it...kind of what I was saying, except for the whole part where what I was talking about is changing your own behavior, not anyone else's.[/quote]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding because I feel quite befuddled.  You think Jewish people would be better off if every non-Jew in the world ignored that the Holocaust happened?  You don't think the massive acknowledgement of that somehow helped?  Or did you mean that past a certain level you think acknowledgement is not useful.  And in which case why would you be the one who gets to decide what that level is and proclaim that it is time to "check that shit."  Or do you think instead maybe it might be a good idea to have a discussion about that with all the involved parties.

Also, going back to the privilege thing, why would you think people are the best judge of their own behavior?  Going back to the nature of racism thing, why would you assume everyone is aware of the racism they are practicing?

And yes, I did not see where you were talking about just changing one's own behavior; you were talking about what we teach children.  And you were talking about the effect discussing the problem has on others.

How much of the racism issue is created by those trying to fix it?

I must be confused what you are saying because by what mechanism would this be happening?  When someone taught you about racism as a lad, did you think to yourself, "Being superior because of race is a thing?  That would really benefit me!  I should subscribe to that idea!"  Or do you think teachers are like, "We feel bad for the Jewish kids because of the holocaust so we shouldn't hold them to as high a standard as the rest."  Or do you think the first time they hear their parents say something racist they are going to think, "I'm going to completely ignore this new idea this person is introducing because I've never previously heard it."  As Jamesqf might point out, racism has evolved at multiple points in history; there is no reason to suppose that innocence confers immunity to it.

I can meet so far as to agree that innocence and ignorance of the issues are the goal.  We certainly have an easier time discussing the modern problems of racism with someone who grew up during the civil rights era than, say, someone who grew up when slavery was still an institution.  Or, say, having successfully suppressed the use of the N-word for most of the population means we don't have to cover all that ground again.  It's good for everybody that there's not a ton of debate about that.  But don't forget that plenty of people in previous time periods thought that everything was all hunky-dory and we could end the conversation right then.

[Constance Noring]

The point at which you refer to other people's arguments as "garbage" might be the point at which you stop and really ask yourself if you understand them rather than assuming they're the ones with the dogmatism problem.  You don't, according to what I've seen you write, understand what white privilege is.  It sounds like JordanRead might.  If you think that your race has had no effect on your life, then, *ding ding ding* you have racial privilege!  Other people don't have the privilege of thinking that.  In fact, it's quite possible that your race has had no effect and that other people think that your race has had no effect.  Get the door, that's more of your white privilege knocking.

I would also add that just because someone does not feel or perceive that they personally have received any benefit from their race does not automatically invalidate racial privilege as a concept.

JordanRead slightly misses the point in making the point that this is how everyone should be treated.  No one disagrees with that, but ignoring that white people have these privileges and others don't and ignoring the benefits that you have already experienced in life because of this is like some Marie-Antoinette-level obliviousness.  Being able to ignore race is a nice thing that white people get to do and ignoring that they're ignoring race  or downplaying the importance of that is like the whitest white person reasoning of all.  Acknowledging that ignoring the origins of your perspective is different from having an objective perspective is something that everyone with privilege can do that will really help things. (It has nothing to do with rending your clothing with guilt and self-recrimination like some people seem to assume.)

And this, oh a thousand times this!

The default reaction of a lot of white Americans to the full scope of our racial history is defensiveness, a sort of arms-crossed, jaw-jutted "Huh. Well, am I supposed to feel guilty about it?" No, of course not. Guilt is pointless and counter-productive. What matters is being honest, aware, and willing to look some of our ancestors' uglier attitudes in the eye, instead of shifting our feet and making excuses.

Related: an excellent article on The Atlantic just today on dealing with race and memory, both public and private.

[Jamesqf]

I understood the material, I guess I misunderstood the point you were trying to make with it.  White-looking people did get brought over as slaves, a small percentage, and a lot as indentured servants, so I hear that in arguments sometimes.  If you are just making the point that slavery was a world wide thing, of course that's true but I don't see the relevance.

What's relevant is that if we stop thinking of slavery as uniquely American, we can perhaps learn something useful from the ways in which other societies have dealt with it.  It's also a good thing to puncture the "evil white Americans" meme :-)

I would maintain that the visual distinction between the descendants is unique to only some places and has an effect.

On the contrary, I would say that those distinctions always exist, even if they're not apparent to outsiders.  How do Hindus know who's an untouchable, or the Japanese a burakumin?  How do Shiites & Sunnis, Serbs & Bosnians, Irish Catholics & Protestants, and all the rest tell each other apart? 

If you think that your race has had no effect on your life, then, *ding ding ding* you have racial privilege!

Oh, I get it now!  It's like the doctrine of Original Sin :-) 

[jordanread]

Or like, say, discussing racism in the US with someone who doesn't bother understanding what white privilege is.

I understand perfectly well what you think white privilege is.  What I have been trying to tell you is that I, and a hell of a lot of other white people, are still waiting for our privilege to show up. 

PS: This is a good example of what I said earlier, about certain parties being unwilling to have a discussion that doesn't start by accepting their dogma as unassailable truth.

The point at which you refer to other people's arguments as "garbage" might be the point at which you stop and really ask yourself if you understand them rather than assuming they're the ones with the dogmatism problem.  You don't, according to what I've seen you write, understand what white privilege is.  It sounds like JordanRead might.  If you think that your race has had no effect on your life, then, *ding ding ding* you have racial privilege!  Other people don't have the privilege of thinking that.  In fact, it's quite possible that your race has had no effect and that other people think that your race has had no effect.  Get the door, that's more of your white privilege knocking.

JordanRead slightly misses the point in making the point that this is how everyone should be treated.  No one disagrees with that, but ignoring that white people have these privileges and others don't and ignoring the benefits that you have already experienced in life because of this is like some Marie-Antoinette-level obliviousness.  Being able to ignore race is a nice thing that white people get to do and ignoring that they're ignoring race  or downplaying the importance of that is like the whitest white person reasoning of all.  Acknowledging that ignoring the origins of your perspective is different from having an objective perspective is something that everyone with privilege can do that will really help things.  (It has nothing to do with rending your clothing with guilt and self-recrimination like some people seem to assume.)

I'm glad we're on the same page as far "white privilege". I'm actually a little torn on what you said next though. You are right in that the assumption is that it's something people need to have some response or feeling to. It's the context that bugs me though. And this kind of goes back to my main point. If the lack of racism is called white privilege, we'll never end it, because all of a sudden it's still tied to your skin color (or lack thereof). People of color will never get white privilege, because they aren't white. We've created something that is impossible to achieve, because it's still tied to something we don't have control over, just because we put it in the context of skin color. Acknowledging that I am usually not a target of racism is one thing, but calling it white privilege instead of basic non-biased interactions with others kind of minimizes the actual effects of racism. I know it doesn't have the same ring, and isn't as good for sound bytes, but it puts the power and the focus on where it needs to be: people who don't get non-biased interactions with others, while still leaving the possibility open that they will get there eventually. I know it's just verbiage, but that becomes very important. Words shape, and we need to make sure that we think about the ones we use.

Only a superficial understanding of how it works? I'm pretty sure that it "works" by judging someone/treating them differently based on their race (which I guess is pretty much the definition of superficial - skin deep).

Really?  The many varied and well-articulated posts in this thread didn't get across to you that it might be a bit more complicated than that? 

I was only talking about how it works, not the root causes. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. The reasons and underlying psychology and solutions are complicated, however, trying to make racism itself some type of complex thing I think is part of the problem, if not the biggest part. Racism is judging people by their race. Plain and simple (and stupid). Every time we try to detail what racism is, the only possible outcome is some type of loop hole or excuse for the people who are racist.

I know that was my first thought when I saw Schindler's List.  Wow, this is going to create a lot of anti-semitism; I think the best course is for Jews to just get over it.

I think you are missing my point. Getting over it...kind of what I was saying, except for the whole part where what I was talking about is changing your own behavior, not anyone else's.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding because I feel quite befuddled.  You think Jewish people would be better off if every non-Jew in the world ignored that the Holocaust happened?  You don't think the massive acknowledgement of that somehow helped?  Or did you mean that past a certain level you think acknowledgement is not useful.  And in which case why would you be the one who gets to decide what that level is and proclaim that it is time to "check that shit."  Or do you think instead maybe it might be a good idea to have a discussion about that with all the involved parties.

I'll address the CHECK THAT SHIT comment below, because it is actually tied closer in with that comment. And I'm not saying ignore the history. My thoughts are more along the lines of the constant discussion. I'm not 100% certain how to phrase it, but here is a hypothetical situation that I hope gets my thoughts across (it's an extreme, just to get the point across)

Let's say that we were as hyper aware of racism against Jewish people as we seem to be about people of color. Young jewish kid, about 6 years old, comes home from school and is crying or something because he got picked on at school. His parents immediately start questioning him about the kids who picked on him. "Did they have blonde hair? Blue eyes? Have they said or did anything that seemed nazi-ish?" Lets say that the kid himself was messing around with some friends, fell off the swing set, landed on another kid, and it was the other kids friends who picked on him. Or even that someone just cut in front of him. Or he did something intentionally jerkish and the being picked on was someone standing up for someone else. None of those things matter anymore, because it became all about race. Now, the kid is thinking that this just may have happened because he's jewish...no need to look any further for root cause. Now he loses the opportunity to work on his grip and balance, or his conflict resolution skills, or how his bullying may have had something to do with it.

Immediately assuming racism short circuits the conversation, I feel. Kind of like Bakari mentioned earlier regarding class vs. race. If one immediately assumes that they didn't get the job because they were black, they might never look at the fact that perhaps their ability to express themselves was lacking and needs work.

As far as the idea about having a discussion with the parties involved, I agree that it's important, and would definitely help in understanding it. However, I don't think it would be as helpful in actually finding a solution. There is a cycle with those involved that needs to be broken (if I'm right about part of the cause being the constant focus on it).

I did have a really funny line I was going to write about asking the state government in Louisiana about how to fix the education system in Louisiana, but didn't feel like thinking it all the way through. It would have been hilarious though!!

Also, going back to the privilege thing, why would you think people are the best judge of their own behavior?  Going back to the nature of racism thing, why would you assume everyone is aware of the racism they are practicing?

And yes, I did not see where you were talking about just changing one's own behavior; you were talking about what we teach children.  And you were talking about the effect discussing the problem has on others.

And this is actually something I just realized as I finished up the paragraph above. I am definitely bouncing back and forth between actions I would take, and actions I think society should take. It's probably caused some confusion. The check that shit comment was an example of this. If I have kids, I wouldn't teach them anything about racism at all, with the exception of from an american history thing, along with the internment camps for the Japanese during WWII. When they saw someone who judged someone based on race, or they were judged based on race, I would calmly explain that those people were too dumb to see actual merit, and you shouldn't give them another though. Treat them respectfully, but there is no need to respect them.

If everyone did that, would it work? I think so. However, I do have some major issues with telling others how to act, so I'm kind of stuck here. :D

How much of the racism issue is created by those trying to fix it?

I must be confused what you are saying because by what mechanism would this be happening?  When someone taught you about racism as a lad, did you think to yourself, "Being superior because of race is a thing?  That would really benefit me!  I should subscribe to that idea!"  Or do you think teachers are like, "We feel bad for the Jewish kids because of the holocaust so we shouldn't hold them to as high a standard as the rest."  Or do you think the first time they hear their parents say something racist they are going to think, "I'm going to completely ignore this new idea this person is introducing because I've never previously heard it."  As Jamesqf might point out, racism has evolved at multiple points in history; there is no reason to suppose that innocence confers immunity to it.

I think my response above kind of covers this. As far as when I was taught, I was taught from a purely historical standpoint at school. I thought it was dumb to judge people like that. Later, it turns out that my dad was racist...just kind of proved my point.

I can meet so far as to agree that innocence and ignorance of the issues are the goal.  We certainly have an easier time discussing the modern problems of racism with someone who grew up during the civil rights era than, say, someone who grew up when slavery was still an institution.  Or, say, having successfully suppressed the use of the N-word for most of the population means we don't have to cover all that ground again.  It's good for everybody that there's not a ton of debate about that.  But don't forget that plenty of people in previous time periods thought that everything was all hunky-dory and we could end the conversation right then.

This is a good point to keep in mind. It's a tough spot for me to be in. How would you figure out if we could end the conversation right then without having the conversation, and if it turns out that the conversation is a problem, then how much damage would you do trying to figure out if the damage was gone? It's kind of a cycle.

I don't think I'm wrong, but the only way I could know for sure would be by being part of the problem (as I see it), hence the reason I'm here now.

[Jamesqf]

And this kind of goes back to my main point. If the lack of racism is called white privilege, we'll never end it, because all of a sudden it's still tied to your skin color (or lack thereof). People of color will never get white privilege, because they aren't white.

Ah, but they may well get black privilege, or perhaps 'people of color' privilege :-)

There are really two prongs to the argument here.  First is the question: how can I (or the many people from comparable backgrounds) have experienced 'white privilege', when as far as I can tell, I've never gotten any sort of privilege at all?

Second, white people certainly do experience some effects of racism.  I won't say it's been a really major influence on my life, but it's been there.  From not being able to get college financial aid, to being skipped over for field labor jobs 'cause "white people don't work as hard as Mexicans", to taking crap because I dared socialize with non-white women...  It's just not all one-sided.

[jordanread]

There are really two prongs to the argument here.  First is the question: how can I (or the many people from comparable backgrounds) have experienced 'white privilege', when as far as I can tell, I've never gotten any sort of privilege at all?

Second, white people certainly do experience some effects of racism.  I won't say it's been a really major influence on my life, but it's been there.  From not being able to get college financial aid, to being skipped over for field labor jobs 'cause "white people don't work as hard as Mexicans", to taking crap because I dared socialize with non-white women...  It's just not all one-sided.

Kind of the same argument, but I don't know that we are necessarily on the same page. I'm just saying that the verbiage needs to change, and as a society it might be helpful to stop putting it into everything (including not having prejudice) in the context of racism.

I think you're saying that 'white privilege' is not necessarily a privilege, or something to get defensive about. I just don't think it should be called 'white privilege'...it should be called 'this is how it's supposed to be mostly'.

And your second point kind of touches on what I'm saying, as well. The thought of white privilege almost makes it impossible to discuss racism against white people. Not that it is a huge issue, but it's dismissed simply due to the verbiage. I don't want to derail the thread just talking about white privilege, but more about how the pervasiveness of awareness of racism might not be the best route...Make sense?

[Jamesqf]

I think you're saying that 'white privilege' is not necessarily a privilege, or something to get defensive about. I just don't think it should be called 'white privilege'...it should be called 'this is how it's supposed to be mostly'.

Well, yes and no :-)  I think a big part of what I'm trying to say is not so much that this is how it's supposed to be, it's that if you are far enough down the economic ladder, you don't get privileges, period, and often wind up getting shat upon in various ways.  This is something that applies whether you're black, white or green with purple polkadots.

[sheepstache]

Of course the verbiage is important.  That's why it's called white privilege.

This will sound a bit circular but bear with me.  Did you take Logic 101 in college?  I recall that with the beginning concepts of entailment (P therefore Q, etc.), people vociferously objected to them, saying they didn't make sense.  They immediately came up with all these common sense reasons it wasn't right even though the teacher was there saying it and the book backed him up.  By the end of the week, of course, everybody got it.  The problem had been that it's simply really unintuitive and difficult for the human brain to understand.  And these were reasonably intelligent people who were used to being able to understand things.  What they needed to do was sit and think about it and figure out why it was right.  In fact, that was what the teacher suggested.  He's like, "Ok, I know you think it's not right, but try to pretend that it's right and then think about why that is." 

I know, I know.  It's super counter-intuitive to white people that putting "the power and the focus on where it needs to be" might mean that they don't get to decide what everything is called.

So, yes, by all means, let's not turn it into a thread about white privilege.  Because you should go educate yourself a little more.

(Oh, all right, because I am nice, here are some resources:
http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html
http://thoughtcatalog.com/macy-sto-domingo/2014/04/18-things-white-people-seem-to-not-understand-because-white-privilege/
http://www.cpt.org/files/Undoing%20Racism%20-%20Understanding%20White%20Privilege%20-%20Kendall.pdf
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
And just for fun, here's Louis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
That'll probably just muddy up the issue but fuck it, it's late and it's not my job to enlighten people.)

Racism is judging people by their race. Plain and simple (and stupid). Every time we try to detail what racism is, the only possible outcome is some type of loop hole or excuse for the people who are racist.

You mean like going through a bunch of arguments trying to rename white privilege?  Or trying to end the conversation about race?  I agree.

Young jewish kid, about 6 years old, comes home from school and is crying or something because he got picked on at school. His parents immediately start questioning him about the kids who picked on him. "Did they have blonde hair? Blue eyes? Have they said or did anything that seemed nazi-ish?"

Okay, are you sitting in your room theorizing about how race affects people?  Or are you actually basing this on something?  Because like I mentioned you seem kind of ignorant of how people actually experience racism.  There really is no place for you in the conversation if you don't know what you're talking about and you're not bothering to learn.
Also, you say that it is an extreme example so I assume you're just using it to get the concept across but then you use "immediately assuming racism" as a point in your argument.  Yes, if people immediately assumed racism and didn't talk about anything else, it would be bad.  Thanks for explaining that strawman.
Also, let's say discussion of racism is actually similar to this.  Why would you completely dismiss the possibility that the parents are saying this because they actually face racism?  Like, if it's 1933 and they're teaching the kid, "This is what a Nazi looks like.  If you see one keep your goddamn head down and don't speak yiddish."

Kind of like Bakari mentioned earlier regarding class vs. race. If one immediately assumes that they didn't get the job because they were black, they might never look at the fact that perhaps their ability to express themselves was lacking and needs work.

Okay, I said I wouldn't go into privilege any more, but this is a good example.  It's easy to say, oh, race had nothing to do with it, they shouldn't have gotten the job because they have poor communication.  But we have to look at the full playing field and acknowledge that a white candidate might have gotten away with an equally poor communication style.  They might have been interpreted as being scholarly in an absent-minded way or like our former president, a down-to-earth guy you'd want to have a beer with, or someone who's feisty and clever because he says things like "check that shit."  That's one example where "white privilege" allows us to pinpoint what we're talking about, the wealth of positive connotations for various communication styles that white people have for other white people but not for other groups.

This came up in a conversation the other day in my neighborhood about parents coaching their sons how to deal with being approached by the police.  "Stand up straight, take your hands out of your pockets, call them 'sir.'"  Well, you say, that's good advice for everyone, young white men should do that too.  But the point is if white men don't, the consequences are not as likely to be bad as they are for others.  The privileged can get away with things others can't.  That's not equality.

As far as the idea about having a discussion with the parties involved, I agree that it's important, and would definitely help in understanding it. However, I don't think it would be as helpful in actually finding a solution. There is a cycle with those involved that needs to be broken (if I'm right about part of the cause being the constant focus on it).

Just to be super clear here, by "parties involved" I mean everybody in the country including the people who experience racism.  You're saying it might be helpful but not necessary to include them.  You're saying people who have experienced racism get to be part of the conversation if we let them be part of the conversation.  And you don't think that's racist.  I hope we are miscommunicating.

If I have kids, I wouldn't teach them anything about racism at all, with the exception of from an american history thing, along with the internment camps for the Japanese during WWII. When they saw someone who judged someone based on race, or they were judged based on race, I would calmly explain that those people were too dumb to see actual merit, and you shouldn't give them another though. Treat them respectfully, but there is no need to respect them.

If everyone did that, would it work? I think so.

Oh my god.  How nice for you that you will have white children.  Again, the fact that you can't imagine circumstances in which a child would need to know about racism is like so privileged that it's almost adorable.

Again, how are they supposed to recognize someone being judged based on race?  You think racists still walk around saying, "Black people are genetically inferior so I won't hire one?"  What about Trayvon Martin?  Obviously there is a lot of controversy, but there is not a 100% sure way to know whether race played a role or not.  I don't see how "Well, if it was racially motivated that's stupid" really solves the problem.  What about the problem of separating race and culture that has come up so much in this thread (oh right, I forgot, you don't recognize that problem because racism is simple and only has to do with skin color)?  Or what about the fact that police officers are more likely to shoot potential suspects when they're black?*  What, for pity's sake, about the OP's original question?  How are you going to understand or try to explain the racial wealth gap if you insist on ignoring race?

I think my response above kind of covers this. As far as when I was taught, I was taught from a purely historical standpoint at school. I thought it was dumb to judge people like that. Later, it turns out that my dad was racist...just kind of proved my point.

No, I think it proves my point?  You were taught about it and then when you saw it in real life you recognized it as being dumb.  Maybe you're saying that looking back on it, you realize your dad was racist...so how do you think you figured it out, you don't think your education in the subject helped you to recognize it and reject it at all?


*If you just look at the numbers on the surface, higher crime rate among blacks might appear to be the likely answer.  More interactions with cops creates a higher possibility of being shot by one.  However if you push beyond that, you find that there is actually racism that the cops themselves were not aware of.  Then, you can start to come up with possible solutions.   https://www.inkling.com/read/experience-psychology-laura-king-1st/chapter-3/perception-and-social

[jordanread]

[...]

Apparently the questions I was trying to ask, and the viewpoints I was bringing up for a back and forth aren't coming through. I can't really think of any other way to get you to actually understand what I'm saying, or you do and I'm just not understanding your position as a platform for actually changing anything. Or I'm just exhausted. I still haven't seen any real proposed solutions besides "talk about it" or "understand that you are privileged" and nothing beyond that, which is why I jumped in in the first place: a discussion to find a solution.

I'll personally continue treating people equally, based on their merit, and through my actions attempt to make the world a better place. You can keep doing what you are doing. Maybe we'll meet in the middle. :-)

[starguru]

Are people saying that white privilege is the same as white people don't get discriminated against? 

So if a black guy doesn't get a job that he was qualified for, either white privilege or racism are equivalent and interchangeable  explanations, but there wouldn't be a case where either one and not the other is the explanation?

And in this example, what if there 2 black guys, 6 white guys, and 1 hispanic guy, and 1 asian guy going for a job, and white guy number 2 got it (sorry ladies, only using guys, but don't read into it :)).  What's the breakdown there? 

Maybe it becomes more clear when one looks at the state of jailing people in this country...

Its just a fact that of whites and blacks that commit the same crimes, more blacks go to jail for them (e.g. teenage drug use).   
Its just a fact that more minorities get the death penalty.
Its just a fact that in NY the stop and frisk policy stops and frisks more minorities than whites.  And it seems to have reduced crime. 

And, in the first example, is really access to lawyers that makes the difference?  In that case do poor white kids go to jail for drug use at the same rate as poor back kids, and do wealthy black kids (i.e. those with access to lawyers) go to jail at a same rate as white kids with access to lawyers?

How do we untangle this mess?

Also, this is really become a discussion about racism against blacks.  What happens when we bring other minorities into the mix?  Do Asians not get discriminated against?  They seem to do well regardless.  What about Indians?  They seem to do well regardless.

[Constance Noring]

How do we untangle this mess?

First step, we collectively acknowledge that it's a mess. Because right now, we can't even bring ourselves to do that much. Just look at the last few pages of this thread and the various contortions people have gone through trying desperately to downplay and outright change the focus of the conversation. When people don't even want to admit that there's a mess and the best they can manage is "Oh, it's not so bad. We'll put some throw pillows on it", clean up becomes a secondary goal.

Also, this is really become a discussion about racism against blacks.  What happens when we bring other minorities into the mix?  Do Asians not get discriminated against?  They seem to do well regardless.  What about Indians?  They seem to do well regardless.

Short, punchy, and slightly irreverent answer that runs the risk of burning down the thread again: slavery.

Longer answer? Well, for one, Asians *do* get discriminated against, and certainly have been the targets of some stunningly horrible behavior on the part of the majority in the past. For your reading displeasure. Similarly, Japanese immigrants found themselves on the receiving end of discriminatory legislation at the turn of the 20th century (we'll set aside the internment issue as a nasty side-effect of war). It wasn't until around the 1960s that you start to see Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans begin to find acceptance outside ethnic enclaves (provided they spoke good English and didn't act too foreign). You start to see a massive influx of Southeast Asian (Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais, etc) in the '70s and '80s, and in a few more generations, they'll probably find themselves mostly mainstreamed in a similar fashion. Basically, once you get past the initial, ugly, Social Darwinist hurdles of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Asian immigrant experience has been very much like that of European immigrants - early distaste that gives way to grudging acceptance of 'the good ones' that gives away to shrugging acceptance of the Americanized second and third generation. I'll go ahead and lump Indians (by which I'm assuming you are referring to folks from the Subcontinent) into that general outline, as the U.S. did not see widespread Indian immigration until the latter half of the 20th century either.

[Daley]

So I am understanding that you think it's a difficult conversation to have, not because it should be, but because people get freaked out about their own weaknesses, and as a defense, take their values to extremes (i.e. the community thing you were talking about). Am I understanding you correctly?

Basically, yes.

I think I get what you are saying, but it doesn't necessarily jive with the whole "we prefer people who are like us" argument above. Your first sentence seems to say that you don't agree that racist behavior is taught, but then it seems like you are saying that the behavior isn't taught directly, but more through external forces (i.e. being taught). I don't necessarily disagree, but I think I'm missing your point. My experience is that children don't show those sorts of biases, and they are taught. I just thought of something you said though, and thought it was interesting…you said that we "react to preferences". I thought that was an interesting choice of words.

The root of this issue is human nature. What shapes the outcome is how we handle that human nature during key development stages.

We also have to deal with the issue that one simply cannot live in a social vacuum.

No disagreement here. A single person can, has, and will continue to impact the world.

Glad we agree on this point, it's going to prove to be important here in a moment.

You are talking as if the learned and reinforced behaviors are part of the issue, which I agree with. But you are also talking about history and the "consequences of slavery" as something that should be taken into account…but I still can't figure out why.

What I find astonishing is the fact that you appear to understand how current actions shape the future, but somehow cannot fathom how past actions have shaped the present. It's the exact same concept, the only thing that has shifted is the time frame.

If anything, Jim Crow was worse than slavery, yet Jim Crow was the result of slavery and its abolishment for the purpose of preserving the power structure of the Antebellum South post Reconstruction. During that period, we historically and collectively taught several generations to distrust people of differing skin tones. Today, we have an entire sub-culture within the black community that rejects everything that the white majority champions and upholds as valuable, good and right. Yet many of those things, even if they are good and right for everyone - no matter their skin color, had been used against black people for the purpose of continued oppression under Jim Crow. How can we address the "don't trust whitey and his value system" attitude if we don't understand how it was perpetuated in the first place?

I'd really like a concise version of the solution floated. There has been a discussion, but I don't recall anything being determined as the best solution. That's why we are here, so would you mind telling me what I missed?

It's simple, really. An open and honest dialog about the relevant issues about how the past has shaped the present. Once we understand the motivations of present actions that undermine and harm us collectively and the relationships between us, then we can begin to adjust and promote attitudes that diminish these problems. Of course, it's only simple in that it's easy to understand. It's quite complex in execution because there's a lot of people out there (and even here) who refuse to consider this approach even remotely valuable. We acknowledge the impact of slave culture influencing modern day America, we appropriately give credit for the contributions that blacks built and created for all of the country despite the oppression, it highlights and brings dignity to a people and presents more role models to emulate.

The core idea behind my approach is to not ignore human nature. You cannot just hand wave away the very core biases in humanity that simply will not go away. You asked what the general point of the linked article was to the larger picture? It's that it's there. Always. Lurking. What shapes its expression and manifestation boils down to how those instincts are taught to be handled and treated. Knowledge is power, and if we collectively had the courage to actually embrace and teach the difference between good and evil, that has the power to consciously subvert the instinct. By acknowledging it, recognizing it's existence, and then teaching and reinforcing the lesson that it is wrong to allow that bias to negatively influence your decisions due to the potential consequences of doing so, people gain the self-awareness to recognize when they do start to do that and subsequently choose to not do so as they understand it to be the wrong thing to do. People aren't blind idiots, they notice things like different physical features and skin tone. Treating them as such with your approach is intellectually insulting, and consequently undermines the validity of abolishing this sort of discrimination in the first place. Let us teach the subsequent generations to not fear differences, nor let us simply ignore them like an ostrich who sticks his head in the sand hoping it'll just go away... let us instead learn to embrace and celebrate that diversity as a collective strength.

Ignoring a problem is never the solution. Doing so only allows the problem to get worse and become more costly to fix. An ounce of prevention is always more valuable than a pound of cure. That prevention is to not ignore human nature but adjust for it, continued education, and a willingness to discuss the relevant issues. Unfortunately, racism is like cancer. If you want to help eliminate it, you first need to have the fortitude to call it what it actually is: hatred of the unfamiliar. Mankind's hatred isn't dumb, it's EVIL.

Calling something good or evil, right or wrong, or acknowledging the capacity for evil within us all does not absolve personal accountability, it only reinforces and strengthens accountability. Waving away these values as subjective in and of itself is one of the highest form of hypocrisy in personal accountability, because it's an "ethical" accountability out for people to justify doing evil things solely for selfish reasons. Remember, you're the one who agrees with a certain unnamed author who states that selfishness is a virtue.

Education is the answer, regardless of the issue. Self-awareness would be an awesome thing to teach. "Not being a dick" is more subjective.

Self-awareness is a core tool for introspection, and without introspection, one tends to go through life oblivious to the consequences of their actions... especially one of the most valuable lessons ever: treat others how you want to be treated. People who act out of pure self interest and give no consideration to others tend to exhibit incredibly dickish tendencies. It kind of goes hand in hand, in fact - dickishness and sociopathy are pretty much equal all things considered. It's not a particularly subjective value at all, IMHO.

MODS: The following are not personal attacks, these are personal responses to ugly attitudes and they are being said in the hopes that this ugliness may be diminished in a certain individual by calling them on the problems directly. If you feel I have stepped over the line, I would prefer that you publicly suspend my account for a few days than censor what I feel needs to be said.

I'll personally continue treating people equally, based on their merit, and through my actions attempt to make the world a better place.

I'm calling shenanigans here. What exactly are you basing that merit on as you're passing judgment on your fellow man? For someone who supposedly treats people equally, you've sure brought a lot of unnecessary baggage and condemnation in this discussion towards myself for my belief systems. You're sure quick to judge and harshly dismiss anything from anyone else who disagrees with your viewpoint. You're not bigoted because of our skin tone, you're bigoted because of our beliefs. Exactly how is this sort of behavior superior to racism? The end result is the same, you're shutting down and treating other people as inferiors because they represent something different that you aren't experienced enough to understand and which makes it uncomfortable for you to handle.

Anyway, I noticed that you agree an awful lot with me in broad general aspects, but the points where you disagree with me are either through ignorance of what I'm trying to state, or due to your own inherently discriminatory bias that colors your perception of what I'm actually saying to mean something else that was never stated. A great example of this is where you ride off half-cocked claiming that I'm promoting some sort of guilt complex when I (and others) have repeatedly stated to the contrary on this point. You assumed I said something I was not, repeatedly. In the interest of promoting your philosophy of personal accountability, I'm going to point these actions out and leave them for you to sort through and make amends on.

There is a lot more I could address about your response, but I'm going to publicly limit it to one major theme that you have presented with two sub-points.

You state that the answer is to ignore racism. Just forget about it. That acknowledging that it even potentially exists is the damaging problem that perpetuates the inequality in the first place. You also proclaim loudly that education is the only answer to not only this inequality but all of life's problems.

What is actually your solution? Is it deliberate, willful ignorance of a subject, or is it education? It can't be both.

You also carry on with high-handed words about how bringing good and evil into the discussion isn't productive. You bring up how moral relativism is the superior approach, and it's a cornerstone to your approach to ignoring the race issue entirely as a solution. You come out and repeatedly state that racism is simply dumb... not evil, dumb. Yet you then condemn many of my own ideas and statements as being without merit because of their supposed subjectivity. Moral relativism is about as subjective as someone can get.

Which is it? Is subjectiveness okay so long as it's only your subjectivity that is considered to be the right path, or might there be a common moral compass that all of humanity could technically embrace and use to deem value, worth, merit, and good?

How can you hope to actually help other people and make the world a better place if you don't have the intellectual honesty or capacity for discernment to genuinely recognize good from evil?

If everything genuinely is morally relative, why should you even find racism objectionable in the first place? After all, from a purely logical standpoint, discrimination of any stripe is an incredibly useful tool to utilize to perpetuate a power structure that greatly benefits one's rigidly intellectual world-view, and in life there's always winners and losers. The losers deserve their fates because they simply don't work hard enough, remember?

Is Charlie Manson just stupid, or is he evil? For fear of invoking Godwin's Law, what about Hitler? Was he just dumb, or was he evil?

I'm not talking about judgment here, I'm talking about discernment. Judgment is not for us to execute, but discernment helps us to do, uplift and cling to the truly valuable things in life.

Try and make it vanish in an intellectual puff of smoke all you want, but the basic understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, are written upon all our hearts. We ignore it at our own peril. You seem like a reasonable fellow, and your heart does appear to be in the right place, though your mind is getting in the way. Empathy can be learned, it's not too late for anyone. Make it a personal point to try and understand how your fellow man actually operates so you stop hiding behind the "I don't understand" cop-out, and only then should you try and re-approach this issue. Your purely rational intellect is valuable and even laudable to an extent, but it's just as damaging to this conversation as a purely emotional response. As with all things in life - balance. The narrow path is difficult to walk because it means we can't veer too far off to any one extreme.

At this point I have said all the constructive things I can in this thread, and can do no more than to rehash what has already been stated. Jordan, if you'd like to continue on the conversation one on one, feel free to PM me. The tone and civility of this thread is beginning to dissolve due to certain people's inability to not make it about themselves and their desire to steal the focus off the actual topic. I won't further contribute to that as this is drifting enough, even if it is still relatively germane to the topic at hand. Any subsequent back and forth off of the ideas expressed here-in would only undermine the topic's value further.

[frugalamber]

I'll go ahead and lump Indians (by which I'm assuming you are referring to folks from the Subcontinent) into that general outline, as the U.S. did not see widespread Indian immigration until the latter half of the 20th century either.

I agree with this, as even though it looks like they are doing good; remember most are first generation higher educated cream layer whom you see in US and Canada. And we do feel/see discrimination. The difference i observed with my more than a decade of american experience is, they ignore and find ways to go ahead as that was one of the major goal moving out of India.

[jordanread]

MODS: The following are not personal attacks, [...]

Mods: in total agreement here. I do not take these as attacks at all. I take them as evidence that I'm either doing a really shitty job of getting my point across, or I am missing something on a fundamental level. Either way, useful information.

Daley, I will definitely hit you up offline, because of the points above. As far as this thread goes, I'll step back until I figure out which one of the two things above is happening. Once I talk to Daley, I'll hit you up too sheepstache, if you are interested.

To the OP, and other posters, I didn't realize how much I derailed this thread, and I apologize for that. Please carry on being awesome, and feel free to disregard my posts.

[starguru]

How do we untangle this mess?

First step, we collectively acknowledge that it's a mess. Because right now, we can't even bring ourselves to do that much. Just look at the last few pages of this thread and the various contortions people have gone through trying desperately to downplay and outright change the focus of the conversation. When people don't even want to admit that there's a mess and the best they can manage is "Oh, it's not so bad. We'll put some throw pillows on it", clean up becomes a secondary goal.

Also, this is really become a discussion about racism against blacks.  What happens when we bring other minorities into the mix?  Do Asians not get discriminated against?  They seem to do well regardless.  What about Indians?  They seem to do well regardless.

Short, punchy, and slightly irreverent answer that runs the risk of burning down the thread again: slavery.

Longer answer? Well, for one, Asians *do* get discriminated against, and certainly have been the targets of some stunningly horrible behavior on the part of the majority in the past. For your reading displeasure. Similarly, Japanese immigrants found themselves on the receiving end of discriminatory legislation at the turn of the 20th century (we'll set aside the internment issue as a nasty side-effect of war). It wasn't until around the 1960s that you start to see Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans begin to find acceptance outside ethnic enclaves (provided they spoke good English and didn't act too foreign). You start to see a massive influx of Southeast Asian (Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais, etc) in the '70s and '80s, and in a few more generations, they'll probably find themselves mostly mainstreamed in a similar fashion. Basically, once you get past the initial, ugly, Social Darwinist hurdles of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Asian immigrant experience has been very much like that of European immigrants - early distaste that gives way to grudging acceptance of 'the good ones' that gives away to shrugging acceptance of the Americanized second and third generation. I'll go ahead and lump Indians (by which I'm assuming you are referring to folks from the Subcontinent) into that general outline, as the U.S. did not see widespread Indian immigration until the latter half of the 20th century either.

You didn't answer any of the other questions :).  Am I seeing how you define "white privilege" correctly?  How do we view the hiring scenario I described, which I assume is fairly common. 

[galaxie]

What other government action has been taken or suggested?

It seems like everyone agrees that part of the key is education.  How about school vouchers?  I would love to see parents get involved, trying to get their 'money's worth', and choose schools that would now compete for federal money.

I think school vouchers would do a lot more than universal preschool.  Just the mere fact of getting to choose a school would likely get parents more involved and invested in making sure their child got a good education.  I think it would also eliminate a lot of the school violence, as parents would pull their kids from violent schools and put them somewhere safer.

But then the kids whose parents don't care get more screwed.  My town has a free after school program complete with tutoring.  My neighbors would not send their kids because they would have to pick them up at the end of the day.

I think it would probably be a public good if programs like this after-school situation were "opt-out" instead of "opt-in."  Parents who don't have time or don't care would not be ruining things for their kids.

[Gin1984]

I'd like to point out that many people don't think they are biased yet when tested, they come out biased.  I've done some of the tests in class and it was a major eye opener. 

[Gin1984]

How do we untangle this mess?

First step, we collectively acknowledge that it's a mess. Because right now, we can't even bring ourselves to do that much. Just look at the last few pages of this thread and the various contortions people have gone through trying desperately to downplay and outright change the focus of the conversation. When people don't even want to admit that there's a mess and the best they can manage is "Oh, it's not so bad. We'll put some throw pillows on it", clean up becomes a secondary goal.

Also, this is really become a discussion about racism against blacks.  What happens when we bring other minorities into the mix?  Do Asians not get discriminated against?  They seem to do well regardless.  What about Indians?  They seem to do well regardless.

Short, punchy, and slightly irreverent answer that runs the risk of burning down the thread again: slavery.

Longer answer? Well, for one, Asians *do* get discriminated against, and certainly have been the targets of some stunningly horrible behavior on the part of the majority in the past. For your reading displeasure. Similarly, Japanese immigrants found themselves on the receiving end of discriminatory legislation at the turn of the 20th century (we'll set aside the internment issue as a nasty side-effect of war). It wasn't until around the 1960s that you start to see Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans begin to find acceptance outside ethnic enclaves (provided they spoke good English and didn't act too foreign). You start to see a massive influx of Southeast Asian (Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais, etc) in the '70s and '80s, and in a few more generations, they'll probably find themselves mostly mainstreamed in a similar fashion. Basically, once you get past the initial, ugly, Social Darwinist hurdles of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Asian immigrant experience has been very much like that of European immigrants - early distaste that gives way to grudging acceptance of 'the good ones' that gives away to shrugging acceptance of the Americanized second and third generation. I'll go ahead and lump Indians (by which I'm assuming you are referring to folks from the Subcontinent) into that general outline, as the U.S. did not see widespread Indian immigration until the latter half of the 20th century either.

You didn't answer any of the other questions :).  Am I seeing how you define "white privilege" correctly? How do we view the hiring scenario I described, which I assume is fairly common.

You do realize that by how you posted your scenario you are showing biases, including against women?

[Jamesqf]

I'd like to point out that many people don't think they are biased yet when tested, they come out biased.  I've done some of the tests in class and it was a major eye opener.

Perhaps because that sort of test is frequently loaded, in order to produce the results the test-giver wants to see?

First step, we collectively acknowledge that it's a mess. Because right now, we can't even bring ourselves to do that much. Just look at the last few pages of this thread and the various contortions people have gone through trying desperately to downplay and outright change the focus of the conversation.

Yes, if we all would just kneel down and recite "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned..." :-)

That's really the crux of the matter: you and the other faithful insist that we accept your dogma as a basis for discussion or risk excommunication.  If facts seem to contradict the dogma, it's the facts that are wrong.

[Gin1984]

I'd like to point out that many people don't think they are biased yet when tested, they come out biased.  I've done some of the tests in class and it was a major eye opener.

Perhaps because that sort of test is frequently loaded, in order to produce the results the test-giver wants to see?

First step, we collectively acknowledge that it's a mess. Because right now, we can't even bring ourselves to do that much. Just look at the last few pages of this thread and the various contortions people have gone through trying desperately to downplay and outright change the focus of the conversation.

Yes, if we all would just kneel down and recite "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned..." :-)

That's really the crux of the matter: you and the other faithful insist that we accept your dogma as a basis for discussion or risk excommunication.  If facts seem to contradict the dogma, it's the facts that are wrong.

So only your opinion can be right?  Peer review research, nah, that is all manipulated, but, but THE FACTS say otherwise.  What facts are you talking about?  The actual research does not agree with you so what exactly are you calling facts?

[Dulcimina]

This is unrelated to the current discussion but as a person of color who is an immigrant I’d like to give my perspective anyway on the wealth gap that my family faced.  My family came to the US when in the early/mid-eighties.  I was a teenager then.  I attended high school here, undergrad (got grants and scholarships unrelated to race) and grad school here (stipend and tuition paid, typical in the sciences and unrelated to race). 

PART 1
My mom worked as a nanny.  Her employers sponsored her for a green card.  My mom voluntarily paid into social security, but her employers didn’t want to pay the employer share.  Once she got her green card in the nineties, my parents set about making sure the social security record was accurate.  They were told that in order for her ten years of contributions to count, the employer had to provide a W2 or equivalent to prove that the money she put in was wage income.  This was the era of Nannygate scandals, and my mom didn’t want to get her employers into trouble for not having paid social security taxes on her behalf, so they chose not to pursue it any further.

They are now in their late sixties, and depending hard on social security income which is reduced by those ten years of contributions that didn’t count.  In hindsight, I’m sure there are smart people on here who will say they should have done this or that differently.  To that I’ll say is that they were pretty typical of a class of immigrants with limited education trying to better themselves. One of those typical things is the feeling of vulnerability, and of not making waves lest your sponsor decides that it’s too much work to continue to petition on your behalf.

PART 2
It took about five years for them to get their green card, and by the time they got it, I was no longer a minor and was therefore ineligible to get my green card at the same time.  So, around 1995, they applied for me in the category of  family member of a green card holder (Category 2B).  For the purpose of this post, I looked up one of the State Department’s archived visa bulletins from 1995: http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/9512bulletin.html.  In December 1995, they were processing applications from July 1990.  This is due to statutory limitations on the number of immigrants in that category.  So because the 2B category was oversubscribed, they were required to push the overflow of applications from previous years into subsequent years before they could even begin processing my application.  By 2000, when I finished grad school, they had only gotten as far as  June 1993 http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/visa_bulletin/2001-01bulletin.html.

Those state department visa numbers are important because I knew by the second year of grad school that I wanted out.  But my ability to stay in the country legally while waiting for my green card was dependent on my visa.  And my visa was linked to being a student.  I could get a job, but that would require first finding an employer who was willing to file a work visa on my behalf.  Plenty of people work under the table, but I didn’t want to jeopardize my immigration case by working illegally.  So I stuck with grad school, making a stipend that maxed out at $17,000 in my last year as a grad student.

I had a position waiting for me when I finished.  I finished up in January, and the university stopped paying me shortly thereafter.  But they took months to officially prepare the degree information (I was going to walk in May) meaning my new employer couldn’t start the H1B visa petition until I was qualified with the degree, and they couldn’t complete the job offer if I couldn’t work for them legally.  This meant months living off my meagre savings, paying out COBRA with no idea how long the situation would last. A similar situation took place a few years later when the H-1B was being renewed.  I was again forced temporarily out of work while waiting for the paperwork.

Another point was that the stipend was not considered wage income.  This is true whether you are a US citizen or not.  The stipends are considered taxable grant reported on forms 1099G or 1042S.  The upside is that my take home was higher than someone who made the same amount but had social security taken out.  However, I wasn’t eligible for any type of tax-advantaged retirement savings even after I got my green card. I was about 35.

As soon as I got my green card, I hustled to get my savings going, bought/rented out a house, took on extra responsibilities to get a raise and also got a second job. I keep my expenses low, and I’ll probably be FI based on 4% of my current expenses by the end of the year.  My plan is to retire in about 4-5 years because of all the years of insecurity about being allowed to go back to work if retirement savings don’t hold up the way I planned.

[starguru]

How do we untangle this mess?

First step, we collectively acknowledge that it's a mess. Because right now, we can't even bring ourselves to do that much. Just look at the last few pages of this thread and the various contortions people have gone through trying desperately to downplay and outright change the focus of the conversation. When people don't even want to admit that there's a mess and the best they can manage is "Oh, it's not so bad. We'll put some throw pillows on it", clean up becomes a secondary goal.

Also, this is really become a discussion about racism against blacks.  What happens when we bring other minorities into the mix?  Do Asians not get discriminated against?  They seem to do well regardless.  What about Indians?  They seem to do well regardless.

Short, punchy, and slightly irreverent answer that runs the risk of burning down the thread again: slavery.

Longer answer? Well, for one, Asians *do* get discriminated against, and certainly have been the targets of some stunningly horrible behavior on the part of the majority in the past. For your reading displeasure. Similarly, Japanese immigrants found themselves on the receiving end of discriminatory legislation at the turn of the 20th century (we'll set aside the internment issue as a nasty side-effect of war). It wasn't until around the 1960s that you start to see Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans begin to find acceptance outside ethnic enclaves (provided they spoke good English and didn't act too foreign). You start to see a massive influx of Southeast Asian (Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais, etc) in the '70s and '80s, and in a few more generations, they'll probably find themselves mostly mainstreamed in a similar fashion. Basically, once you get past the initial, ugly, Social Darwinist hurdles of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Asian immigrant experience has been very much like that of European immigrants - early distaste that gives way to grudging acceptance of 'the good ones' that gives away to shrugging acceptance of the Americanized second and third generation. I'll go ahead and lump Indians (by which I'm assuming you are referring to folks from the Subcontinent) into that general outline, as the U.S. did not see widespread Indian immigration until the latter half of the 20th century either.

You didn't answer any of the other questions :).  Am I seeing how you define "white privilege" correctly? How do we view the hiring scenario I described, which I assume is fairly common.

You do realize that by how you posted your scenario you are showing biases, including against women?

You realize that I specifically pointed out that I knew I wasn't including women.  Has does that show bias?  I can't believe I am being called biased for asking a question, pointing out that the exclusion of women was known, all in the spirit of trying to understand the point.

[Jamesqf]

So only your opinion can be right?  Peer review research, nah, that is all manipulated, but, but THE FACTS say otherwise.  What facts are you talking about?  The actual research does not agree with you so what exactly are you calling facts?

No, my opinions are not necessarily right.  They are for discussion.  The problem is that some people do not want to participate in such discussion, because their dogma says that things are a certain way, and dissention is not allowed.

As for 'research', might I remind you of the countless volumes of research supporting various religious dogmas, all starting from a fundamental assumption that the religion's scripture is infallible.  Challenge that fundamental assumption, and everything built on it falls down.

It seems to me that this is pretty close to a fairly classic 'black swan' fallacy.  f you start from an unquestionable assumption, for instance that all white people enjoy 'white privilege', you can do research to 'prove' that it exists by carefully looking only at the white swans - that is, those white people who do seem to enjoy privileges- and ignoring the black ones you happen to run across.  Which is the point of my anecdotal observations, and my repeated requests so show me exactly how I, and others like me, have enjoyed any sort of 'white privilege': we are the black swans which destroy your 'all swans are white' dogma.

I'll even go further, and argue that most of what you claim as 'white privilege' might better be called green privilege, since it accrues to those who have money*, regardless of the pigmentation of their skin.

*Which, incidentally, explains why there is much less discrimination towards current Indian and Asian immigrants.  They mostly go to work in tech, and so earn a good bit of money.

[Gin1984]

So only your opinion can be right?  Peer review research, nah, that is all manipulated, but, but THE FACTS say otherwise.  What facts are you talking about?  The actual research does not agree with you so what exactly are you calling facts?

No, my opinions are not necessarily right.  They are for discussion.  The problem is that some people do not want to participate in such discussion, because their dogma says that things are a certain way, and dissention is not allowed.

As for 'research', might I remind you of the countless volumes of research supporting various religious dogmas, all starting from a fundamental assumption that the religion's scripture is infallible.  Challenge that fundamental assumption, and everything built on it falls down.

It seems to me that this is pretty close to a fairly classic 'black swan' fallacy.  f you start from an unquestionable assumption, for instance that all white people enjoy 'white privilege', you can do research to 'prove' that it exists by carefully looking only at the white swans - that is, those white people who do seem to enjoy privileges- and ignoring the black ones you happen to run across.  Which is the point of my anecdotal observations, and my repeated requests so show me exactly how I've enjoyed any sort of 'white privilege' in my life: they are the black swan which destroys your 'all swans are white' dogma.

I'll even go further, and argue that most of what you claim as 'white privilege' might better be called green privilege, since it accrues to those who have money*, regardless of the pigmentation of their skin.

*Which, incidentally, explains why there is much less discrimination towards current Indian and Asian immigrants.  They mostly go to work in tech, and so earn a good bit of money.

Ah, and now you show your ignorance in this subject, they have shown that between whites and others of the same income level a benefit for whites.  Also, peer reviewed research is not equivalent to your "example".  Any premise in research needs to quantified and tested, and they have done so.  Why not just go on google scholar and read any abstract instead of arguing with no actual data. 
Btw, since you seem to like anecdotes instead of actual data here is one.  As a white person, when I complain about racist behavior from cops to their supervisors, I get listened to in a way my minority friends don't even when the behavior being discussed is the same description. 

[Bakari]

There has been so much written, I'm not going to reply point by point.


I, (as a lower class Black person who grew up in a poor, high crime city), would like to say in Jordon's defense that I thought he provided one of the most insightful summaries / explanations of the concept of privilege that I've ever seen.


Moreover, I think the focus on "privilege", and acknowledgement there of, is largely a distraction - I wrote about that just recently: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2014/03/privilege-its-not-problem.html
- mostly a way to filter the "good" white people and men from the "ignorant" ones, and get people to not contribute conflicting ideas to discussions because its "not their place", because apparently you can't have insights or useful contributions unless you have personally experienced whatever it is you are talking about - except thats called an "ad hominem" argument. 
The idea itself is either valid or not valid.  It doesn't make any difference who says it.  If the point is flawed, explain why it's flawed, don't try to attack it by saying "you are ignorant".


And, even though I generally disagree with everything James says, in this case I have to defend him too.  Absolutely a majority of anti-racism activists take it for granted that racism is the cause behind everything where it might possibly be the cause, and refuse to consider any other possible explanation.  Usually "institutional" racism at that, (whatever that means).  It isn't just the effect of lots of individual minds harboring minor racists assumptions subconsciously in a democratic society, it has to be a conspiracy.
Just like in every area of life, if you are looking for something, if you've decided in advance what the answer is, you can easily find it.

When the store clerk fails to come up to a Black man in the aisle and offer assistance, the customer is being ignored because he is Black.
When the store clerk does come up to the Black man in the aisle and offer assistance, the real reason is so they can keep an eye on him in case of shoplifting. 

The second you are willing to confidently explain the internal motivations of other people, you can no longer claim to be objective.
Sure, data shows minorities were stopped under "stop and frisk" more than whites.  Does that show bias?  Only if minorities and whites committed violent street crime at the exact same rate.
You may claim the statistics on drug arrests are flawed because a cop is more likely to give a white kid a warning and look the other way.
But unless you are going to claim that cops give white murder suspects a pass, then you have to admit that Blacks in America really are committing more violent crimes overall.  Which would reasonably translate to disproportionate police attention.


This isn't to say all racism is made up - that would be stupid.  Given a crime has been committed and a suspect identified, in similar circumstances Blacks are slightly more likely to be arrested, more likely to have charges pressed, much more likely to be convicted.
(Of course, conviction rates don't imply anything "institutional" since they are decided by juries, which are a collection of random American citizens - its evidence of the effects of individual subconscious bias over a large scale)


Thing is, it's a false dichotomy.  There can be legitimate effects of modern racism AND people can see racism where there really is none because they are looking for it.  Both of those things happen.  All the time.  And then we have ridiculous debates where someone absolutely insists that no one ever sees racism where there is none because its what they expect to see, and anyone who thinks otherwise must just be ignorant because they never experienced being Black.

[kite]

I'm with you, Bakari. Universal preschool is high on my list of desirable outcomes. I do not have children, but I'd be happy to help pay for it. They say it might be happening here in Seattle if the stars align.

Universal Preschool isn't an outcome.  It is a means to one.  The best predictor of it's effectiveness is the earlier version,  ie.. Head Start.   The secret sauce is not one more program,  unless you are drawing your own salary,  pension and benefits from that program.

Wait, what? Head Start isn't an earlier version of preschool - it's a means-tested one. I'm saying that preschool should be public and open to everyone. It would be a huge help to working parents.

So free daycare for all, regardless of family income?

[Cressida]

I'm with you, Bakari. Universal preschool is high on my list of desirable outcomes. I do not have children, but I'd be happy to help pay for it. They say it might be happening here in Seattle if the stars align.

Universal Preschool isn't an outcome.  It is a means to one.  The best predictor of it's effectiveness is the earlier version,  ie.. Head Start.   The secret sauce is not one more program,  unless you are drawing your own salary,  pension and benefits from that program.

Wait, what? Head Start isn't an earlier version of preschool - it's a means-tested one. I'm saying that preschool should be public and open to everyone. It would be a huge help to working parents.

So free daycare for all, regardless of family income?

Yes, that's what I would support. Rich people send their kids to private school anyway. So offering preschool to everyone equally would only mean that the opposition couldn't whine about handouts to lazy poor people, like they always do.

[Emilyngh]

I'm with you, Bakari. Universal preschool is high on my list of desirable outcomes. I do not have children, but I'd be happy to help pay for it. They say it might be happening here in Seattle if the stars align.

Universal Preschool isn't an outcome.  It is a means to one.  The best predictor of it's effectiveness is the earlier version,  ie.. Head Start.   The secret sauce is not one more program,  unless you are drawing your own salary,  pension and benefits from that program.

Wait, what? Head Start isn't an earlier version of preschool - it's a means-tested one. I'm saying that preschool should be public and open to everyone. It would be a huge help to working parents.

So free daycare for all, regardless of family income?

Yes, that's what I would support. Rich people send their kids to private school anyway. So offering preschool to everyone equally would only mean that the opposition couldn't whine about handouts to lazy poor people, like they always do.

I, personally, would be all for Universal preschool, as long as it's quality care (like what's offered in France).   Unfortunately, too many US preschool programs focus too much on structured learning, IME.   Parents want to think their child is a genius, as evidenced by their ability to memorize meaningless stuff at age 3.   Programs then cater to this at the expense of play, creative activity, and social skill building.

I have a 3 year old, and after reading the literature and looking at the local schools am leaning towards her not attending preschool at all and instead going to a few activities (eg, library groups, swimming lessons, play groups) and staying at home with her SAH parent until kindergarten.   If we had a program like the public French programs I've read about, she'd be attending already.

[Gin1984]

I'm with you, Bakari. Universal preschool is high on my list of desirable outcomes. I do not have children, but I'd be happy to help pay for it. They say it might be happening here in Seattle if the stars align.

Universal Preschool isn't an outcome.  It is a means to one.  The best predictor of it's effectiveness is the earlier version,  ie.. Head Start.   The secret sauce is not one more program,  unless you are drawing your own salary,  pension and benefits from that program.

Wait, what? Head Start isn't an earlier version of preschool - it's a means-tested one. I'm saying that preschool should be public and open to everyone. It would be a huge help to working parents.

So free daycare for all, regardless of family income?

Yes, that's what I would support. Rich people send their kids to private school anyway. So offering preschool to everyone equally would only mean that the opposition couldn't whine about handouts to lazy poor people, like they always do.

I, personally, would be all for Universal preschool, as long as it's quality care (like what's offered in France).   Unfortunately, too many US preschool programs focus too much on structured learning, IME.   Parents want to think their child is a genius, as evidenced by their ability to memorize meaningless stuff at age 3.   Programs then cater to this at the expense of play, creative activity, and social skill building.

I have a 3 year old, and after reading the literature and looking at the local schools am leaning towards her not attending preschool at all and instead going to a few activities (eg, library groups, swimming lessons, play groups) and staying at home with her SAH parent until kindergarten.   If we had a program like the public French programs I've read about, she'd be attending already.

I'm trying to understand the actual motivation here.  It seems like it started (for purposes of this discussion) as a means of closing the achievement gap.  I pointed out that the prior attempt failed to do that.   Then the follow up argument is to "help working families" and already,  my head is spinning at the colossal waste of money that would be.  Direct cash grants or vouchers would be more efficient, providing a sufficient buffer in some family's budget to allow a caregiver in the home.  But a government program that costs $8k per year per preschooler and has a decades long track record of no long term benefit isn't something to reflexively embrace or worse, widen to include children of families at all income levels.

Except that head start has been shown to help, what peer reviewed research do you have that shows differently. 

[Trimatty471]

" in my opinion the beginning, middle and end of this thing is EDUCATION. "

Asian Americans recognize this which is probably why they punch well above their weight in academics in the US. From what I've heard, due to quotas for other groups ( affirmative action), asian students with the lowest scores who get admission often have far higher scores than the students of other groups who also got admission. Do we call this a "barrier to success" for asians?? nope. We take it in our stride and try to work around it.

(Many of) the Asians who you see in the United States represent the top 10% of all Asians. Having crossed the hurdle of immigration means that they are a self-selected group.

If you took the top 10% of Black people and gave them a chance to move to a country where they could make an order of magnitude more money than at home, everyone in that country would think that their habits in the area of education and finance were badass too.

BINGO!

[prefrontalfinance]

" in my opinion the beginning, middle and end of this thing is EDUCATION. "

Asian Americans recognize this which is probably why they punch well above their weight in academics in the US. From what I've heard, due to quotas for other groups ( affirmative action), asian students with the lowest scores who get admission often have far higher scores than the students of other groups who also got admission. Do we call this a "barrier to success" for asians?? nope. We take it in our stride and try to work around it.

(Many of) the Asians who you see in the United States represent the top 10% of all Asians. Having crossed the hurdle of immigration means that they are a self-selected group.

If you took the top 10% of Black people and gave them a chance to move to a country where they could make an order of magnitude more money than at home, everyone in that country would think that their habits in the area of education and finance were badass too.

That actually is happening. They're called Nigerians, and the "top 10%" who've immigrated to the US have the highest level of educational attainment of any immigrant group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_American