[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [sf-core] Fwd: yesterday's article onmassive racial inequality in wealth
Laurie Solomon
ls1000 at live.com
Sun May 23 16:15:51 CDT 2010
While I do think there is some merit in making a linguistic and analytic distinction between "racial prejudice" and "racism" for some purposes in discussion, I am not sure that the one Carl proposed is always suitable; nor do I think it is all that clear in real life or always productive in concrete instances where there is often much overlap and intersection. Moreover, it may be overly formalistic to restrict "racism" to formal systemic and legal structures and processes while ignoring formal and informal, overt and covert, systemic cultural institutions and practices which exist outside the law per se. In this, I have to agree with Marti, that there is a lot more structured discrimination below the surface in the hidden constitutive structure of society than meets the eye in the form of institutional prejudices and predispositions upon which the visable structures and practices, processes and procedures, norms and vales, etc. are grounded.
I also agree with Marti that "slaves" and "slavery" are neither identical or equivalent to an "indentured servant" or "indentured servitude," although they may share some features and properties in common. The two key differences, as Marti points out, are the voluntary contractual nature and underpinning of the latter versus the lack of any such free will or quid pro quo of a legal contract (e.g., the non-contractual elements of a contract), on the one hand, and the undefined and indefinite "in perpetuity" nature of "slavery" versus the defined limited time period of "indentured servitude."
This was a good post Marti.
From: Marti Wilkinson
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:28 PM
To: C. G. ESTABROOK
Cc: discuss at communitycourtwatch.org ; peace discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Discuss] [sf-core] Fwd: yesterday's article onmassive racial inequality in wealth
There is a distinction between stating that social constructions of race, class, and gender have an element of intersection, and claiming that these elements can't or perhaps shouldn't be considered individually. If criminal law treated everyone equally there would not be the discrepancies we see in how laws are enforce based on race, based on class, and based on gender. When you make the argument that racism is based on legal structures the truth is we still see racism in our society and culture. Otherwise the legal structures we have in the United States would treat everyone equally. When the son of actor Michael Douglas was sentenced to half of the minimum recommended sentence, people commented that having a rich and famous daddy made it possible for this guy to get a lighter sentence. This guy was dealing hard drugs and got off considerably lighter than a poor white or black person would have. Of course, the effectiveness of prohibition and incarceration is a whole different subject altogether.
South Africa used to be a racist state but is no longer
This again, goes back to the argument you have made that racism is based in law and that racial prejudice is a separate and distinct concept. According to Merriam-Webster below is the dictionary definition of racism:
a.. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
b.. Racial prejudice or discrimination
The definition of racism is not one that is based on law, but on belief systems and practices. Which makes the argument that racism is based on legal structures just plain factually incorrect. It is also factually incorrect to state that an indentured servant is the same as a slave, which is basically what is being argued in comparing Obama's maternal and paternal ancestry. An indentured servant was under contract for a specific length of time, while enslavement treated human beings as chattel and private property. While the conditions of indentured servants were often as harsh as what slaves endured there are still some tangible and distinct differences between the two. Referring to an indentured servant as a slave, in the sense of how slavery functioned in the United States, is a very perverted and really ugly way to twist history. It's pretty sad really.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 6:28 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net> wrote:
It's been suggested that "racism" be distinguished from "(racial) prejudice" - the former referring to legal structures and the latter to social attitudes. Thus Israel is a racist state, in that people have substantial legal privileges based on descent; South Africa used to be a racist state but is no longer. But prejudice in both states has probably waxed and waned as a complex social phenomenon. (You'd get varying answers over time to the questions, "Do you hate Arabs/Jews?"; "Do you hate blacks/whites?")
The recent conflation of race, class, and gender - the suggestion that they "can't be separated" - has probably contributed to muddled thinking about all three.
For example, one would think that the election of a "mixed-race" president (the term already has something of an archaic quality to it) would work against the reification of race in the US. (Is BHO black or white?) But instead liberals are insisting on the essentialization of the categories - now capitalized Black and White - in order to have a self-protective account of social conflict: it's all racism...
(BTW it might be noted that, if Obama is in any way descended from slaves, it's not on his father's [Black] side but on his mother's [White] side. His father's Luo people seem never to have been slaves, but his maternal great-great-great-grandfather was - as an Irish indentured servant.)
Neoliberalism - the ideological and political counterattack against the social upheaval of the third quarter of the 20th century - has been in place in the US for a generation, dominating "both" political parties. It's the genius of neoliberalism to suppress all but incidental reference to class while insisting that inequalities in society - of the sort you eloquently describe - are owing to prejudice.
On 5/22/10 12:08 AM, Marti Wilkinson wrote:
You simply can't use the very small baby steps that have been accomplished by
the civil rights and other movements to pooh-pooh the very real social
constructions that class, privilege, and racism still play in society. It's
about as ignorant as suggesting that the abolition of slavery somehow
magically translated into equal treatment for free blacks. It was a
progressive step, but the racism surfaced in other ways such as in the rise
of the KKK. Now we have conservatives who are forming tea parties and
targeting organizations like ACORN. How much funding did ACORN lose as a
result of some selective editing of video and a full scale witch hunt by the
GOP? Perhaps it's easy to ignore what some conservatives are advocating in
the form of "citizenship" tests (not unlike the old literacy tests of Jim
Crow) so people can earn the right to vote?
If you really believe that we need to give class constructions more
consideration than issues of racism then you are fooling yourself. As
Roediger and others have pointed out racism and class-ism cannot be
separated. California's proposition 209, which was an anti-affirmative action
measure, garnered a lot of support from white women. Proponents of
proposition 8 have worked hard on appealing to both Black and Hispanic
demographics. We can look at the lessons of history from when former
indentured servants were convinced that freeing blacks would threaten their
own standing in the American colonies. How about when Native Americans were
richly rewarded for returning runaway slaves to the plantations? What
policies that prevented free blacks from traveling in Native American
territory? It wasn't that many generations ago that it was illegal for a
person who had dark skin to be able to read and write, now Arizona wants to
ban ethnic studies programs.
Fast forward to today....how many black people have lost their homes due to
predatory lending practices? It's just another version of the same financial
practices from the 30's and 40's that encouraged 'white flight' and resulted
in segregated communities. How many white kids in Champaign have been issued
citations for public spitting or have gotten stopped for walking on the
street? What about the population of Blacks and Latinos in the prison systems
instead of the justice system? A white kid attending the U of I who is caught
with a bag of weed may be charged with a felony, while a black kid on the
"north end" is likely going to face felony charges. Having a female
representing this county as the States Attorney sure hasn't helped much in
that regards. The power structures in this society depend on racial
inequities in many ways in order to sustain itself.
Speaking of war, African Americans are still the most heaving targeted
demographic for military equipment. Now, if racism really wasn't as bad as it
used to be then AWARE (Anti War Anti Racism Effort) could just simply be in
AWE (Anti War Effort).
If racism really wasn't as bad as it used to be then there would be as many
African Americans, Latinos, and Women pursuing PhD's and directing the
curriculum in university environments. I've heard from people who have taught
at the U of I that the institution can be a hostile work environment for
minorities and it's no picnic to be a part of the system of higher education
there. But, since black students are now allowed to live south of University
Avenue it can be argued that racism at the U of I really isn't as bad as it
used to be.
I guess we can take these small baby steps as a sign that things really
aren't as racist or sexist as it used to be. After all, only in the United
States can we have a Phyllis Schlafly clone as a vice presidential candidate,
and Hillary Clinton (who only took her spouses name /after/ he entered
politics) as a presidential candidate. On her own two feet I doubt that
Hillary would have even managed to have gotten a senate seat, or have been
considered as a potentially viable candidate for the democratic nomination.
HRC's "power" comes from her association with a powerful man, but since
sexism really isn't as bad as it used to be then I guess we can forget that
little fact.
Having been brought up during the 1970's and 1980's I certainly was taught
that the civil rights and the feminist movements gave both people of color
and women an amazing range of choices that had been previously closed to
them. Jim Crow was just one of those chapters in the history of the USA that
happened before my father had lustful thoughts towards my mother. I am
perhaps amongst the first generation of women who were raised to be something
other than wives and mothers. But I also have seen my fair share of gender
discrimination, and sometimes I wonder if things will be much better for my
own daughter.
I have also seen how some of my black neighbors have been treated by members
of the local police department, and I can't dismiss the death of a 15 year
old boy as being something that resulted from the 'accidental' discharge of
an officers weapon. Why is it that when the wife of surgeon brutally stabbed
her two boys, the police response did not involve the use of a SWAT team?
However, the SWAT team came out to my neighborhood and blocked off a
significant portion of the area, in response to a suicidal black man with a
gun. I live one block south of where Mr. Stewart took his life. I know
someone, who has a daughter working in law enforcement, who noted that if
Ellen Feinberg had been a black woman on the North End her ass would probably
be sitting on death row. But since things aren't as bad as they used to be I
suppose we don't have to consider these things at all.
The comfortable thing for me to do would be to sit on my laurels and look at
history and contemplate how much 'better' things are today in regards to
gender and race. Unfortunately, some semblance of critical thinking usually
gets the better of me.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:17 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net
<mailto:cge at shout.net>> wrote:
If the US were "still just as racist as it was 40 years ago" BHO would never
have been elected president; if it were just as sexist, Clinton and Palin
would never have been serious candidates.
You can't simply ignore two generations of victories by the civil rights and
related movements.
At a time when class difference in the US is as high as it’s been in the last
hundred years, we’re being urged not to talk about what we never talk about
(the inequalities produced by capitalism) and to talk lots more about what we
always talk about (the inequalities produced by racism). Why?
One answer, of course, is the absolutely central role race and racism have
played in our history. But it’s not a very good answer. The growing (and
accelerating) inequalities of the last 40 years were not caused by racism and
the catastrophic consequences of the current crash will not be alleviated by
anti-racism.
Neoliberalism has quite brilliantly encouraged the response to more
inequality to be a call for more diversity; neoliberalism insists that the
only inequalities we need to do anything about are the ones produced by
prejudice. Whose purposes does that serve?
On 5/21/10 1:25 PM, Marti Wilkinson wrote:
/Defenders of the administration (and its filthy war) are eager to brand its
critics as racists. If they all aren't racists, then their complaints that
Obama is working against the popular interest and for an economic elite - on
the war, on healthcare, on the banks, etc. - might not be able to be
dismissed so easily./
Where did I defend the administrations involvement in the war in my previous
statement? What I'm SAYING is the US is still just as racist as it was 40
years ago, but it surfaces in far more subtle ways. I haven't read the
latest by Roediger, but there is a book called "The wages of whiteness: Race
and the making of the American working class" which also addresses both race
and class. There is also "Whiteness: The communication of social identity"
edited by Thomas Nakayama and Judith Martin and that is also a good
resource.
FYI: Greg Brown was developmentally disabled and one of the things that does
not get discussed is how often the mentally and developmentally disabled can
be harassed/mistreated by police officers. My brother is disabled and, when
he was younger, he was targeted by a police officer until my father
confronted the cop and put a stop to it. Mr. Brown could very well have been
my brother.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM, C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net
<mailto:cge at shout.net> <mailto:cge at shout.net <mailto:cge at shout.net>>> wrote:
Are you *denying* that "US society is much less racist - and much more
unequal - than it was 40 years ago"?
Defenders of the administration (and its filthy war) are eager to brand its
critics as racists. If they all aren't racists, then their complaints that
Obama is working against the popular interest and for an economic elite - on
the war, on healthcare, on the banks, etc. - might not be able to be
dismissed so easily.
On 5/21/10 10:53 AM, Marti Wilkinson wrote:
"US society is much less racist - and much more unequal - than it was 40
years ago"
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/a-critique-of-walter-benn-michaels/
I really think a lot of white intellectuals like Walter Benn Michaels are
truly out of touch with the way things are in this culture today. While we do
have a black president, we also have a tea party and birther movement that
reflects the ingrained racism that is still prevalent today. The problem with
focusing on class differences alone is it gives white self-described liberals
a free pass to avoid looking at how their own whiteness (and privilege),
plays a role here.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM, C. G. ESTABROOK <cge at shout.net
<mailto:cge at shout.net> <mailto:cge at shout.net <mailto:cge at shout.net>>
<mailto:cge at shout.net <mailto:cge at shout.net> <mailto:cge at shout.net
<mailto:cge at shout.net>>>> 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100523/0755d159/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list