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

[Belden Fields]

Even t hough I was a bit weary of this discussion after researching  
and teaching in these areas, both in the US and in other countries,  
for almost 40 years, I was going to enter into it.  But I don't need  
to now, just to say that I think this statement by Marti hits the  
nail on the head with clarity of thought and with that wonderful gift  
of succinctness.  How refreshing!
Belden



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Marti Wilkinson <martiwilki at gmail.com>
> Date: May 22, 2010 11:28:40 PM CDT
> To: "C. G. ESTABROOK" <cge at shout.net>
> Cc: discuss at communitycourtwatch.org, peace discuss <Peace- 
> discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] [sf-core] Fwd: yesterday's article on  
> massive 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 belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and  
> capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent  
> superiority of a particular race
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss- 
> communitycourtwatch.org


-- 
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/attachments/20100523/edb47b54/attachment.html>