[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [sf-core] Fwd: yesterday's article on massive racial inequality in wealth

[C. G. ESTABROOK]

Racism (like sexism) can in principle be overcome by a change in mind, by 
reconciliation. But class is different; that requires a change in social reality 
- wealth, and role in the process of production. Reconciliation - good feelings 
- between exploiter and exploited serves the interests of only one.

Some people (usually not Americans) have noted the difference "between the goals 
of feminist, anti-racist, anti-sexist struggles on the one hand, and class 
struggle on the other. In the first case, the goal is to translate antagonism 
into difference (the peaceful coexistence of sexes, religions, ethnic groups), 
but the goal of class struggle is precisely the opposite: to aggravate class 
difference into class antagonism. To set up a series of equivalences between 
race, gender and class is to obscure the peculiar logic of class struggle, which 
aims at overcoming, subduing, even annihilating the other – if not its physical 
being, then at least its socio-political role and function. In the one case, we 
have a horizontal logic involving mutual recognition among different identities; 
in the other, we have the logic of struggle with an antagonist" [Slavoj Zizek].


On 5/21/10 11:07 AM, Jan & Durl Kruse wrote:
> David Roediger's new book: "How Race Survived U.S. History - From
> Settlement and Slavery to the Obama Phenomenon" addresses the historical
> development of the joint issues of race (white supremacy) and economic
> class (working poor) in our country.
> If you want a historical perspective on these two intertwined issues,
> it's a good read!
>
>
> On May 21, 2010, at 10:36 AM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>
>> US society is much less racist - and much more unequal - than it was
>> 40 years ago.
>>
>> In 1970 the election of a black president was unthinkable, but in that
>> year the distribution of wealth (Gini index) was at its least unequal
>> in the 20th century. Today it's back to where it was in the late
>> 1920s, and the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands is not
>> only continuing but accelerating.
>>
>> "...anti-racism today performs at least one of the same functions that
>> racism used to — it gives us a vision of our society as organized
>> racially instead of economically — while adding another function — it
>> insists that racism is the great enemy to be overcome. But all the
>> anti-racism in the world won't take any money away from the rich and
>> won't give any of it to the poor." [Walter Benn Michaels]
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/10 9:47 AM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Very interesting article. Good points. It's always good for Americans to
>>> see this kind of discussion and realize we don't do too well when it
>>> comes to this kind of basic economic "fairness," no matter how much the
>>> blowhards talk about the "land of opportunity." Our system just doesn't
>>> serve most people too well - but then, we know that. It's just good to
>>> have the numbers.
>>>
>>> On the numbers, I have to take issue with the "typical" white/black
>>> family stats, though - and not just to be picky with words. I think it
>>> gives a false impression.
>>>
>>> The article doesn't say, but if what's meant is "average" (mean) then it
>>> isn't "typical" at all in an economy with vast inequalities like the
>>> kind described in the article. We can, and do (as the article points
>>> out), have a small number of extremely wealthy people and a huge number
>>> of people essentially left out of that massive accumulation. What that
>>> amounts to is the "average" (mean) is skewed upwards - making it look
>>> like more people are better off than we are.
>>>
>>> "Typical" here could also be median, a.k.a. the middle number if you
>>> arrange all the wealth from highest to lowest, but I doubt it. It seems
>>> too high given the inequality the article describes. Even if so, I'd
>>> argue that if the range of wealth is very wide, then the median isn't
>>> very "typical" either.
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm missing something. I'm not 100% awake yet.
>>>
>>> Ricky
>>>
>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.