Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiInstitutional Racism Ignored
More feelings than facts in coverage of inequality
After a tour of the country last year, a United Nations special rapporteur (4/28/09) urged Washington to do more to address "the depth of racism [that] still permeates all dimensions of life of American society." Not "questions of race," not "past racism," not "personal biases"--but present-day, institutional racism, as expressed in, for example, "racial bias in conviction rates and length of sentences of both juvenile and criminal courts," "direct discriminatory practices in housing...as well as in mortgage lending," and in the educational system, "racial bias in the type of disciplinary action given to white or minority students."
Restrained and conciliatory in tone, the report nevertheless went leagues beyond most corporate news reporting simply by recognizing racism as a demonstrable reality--not uncomplicated (laws and policies may have racially disparate impacts though non-discriminatory on their face; there is overlap with issues of class) but not reducible, either, to matters of personal sentiment or individual interactions.
Corporate media don't just fail to seek out stories of structural inequality; they run from them when they're offered, as seen recently in the widespread effort to dissolve questions of racial profiling, raised by the controversial arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, into a matter of differing perceptions ("The Great Divide: He Said, He Said," Boston Herald, 7/26/09) or some people's feelings ("Suspicions of Police Bias Haunt Black Men," Baltimore Sun, 7/26/09).
The arrest of a high-status black man, mistaken for an intruder in his own home by a white officer, was covered above all in terms of President Barack Obama's reaction, whether his initial criticism of the officers went "overboard" (Kansas City Star, 7/23/09) or whether the story would "sidetrack his healthcare agenda" (L.A. Times, 7/25/09). But in the context of a conversation about whether racial profiling may have occurred in a specific case, wouldn't it be relevant to explore the reality of profiling? Most outlets decided not.
That lack of serious reporting didn't leave a void so much as fill it-with the inaccurate idea that racial profiling is a matter on which the jury is out. Instead of exploration of specific practices which include "in addition to racially or ethnically discriminatory acts, discriminatory omissions on the part of law enforcement" (ACLU statement, 11/23/05), we got talk of "the historically uneasy relationship between blacks and law enforcement" (Orlando Sentinel, 7/25/09) or "the wariness of a population that feels singled out and mistreated" (Washington Post, 8/2/09).
The fact that profiling is illustrated not by anecdote, but by repeated patterns over time, was obscured by articles ending on the notion that "‘the cop probably had a bad day, and the professor had a bad day. It could have been a black cop and a white professor'" (Boston Herald, 7/24/09), or stressing that "the line of when to put on handcuffs is a personal and blurry one, varying among officers in the same city, the same precinct, even the same patrol car" (New York Times, 7/25/09).
Fundamental misunderstanding was also betrayed by pieces like the L.A. Times' July 25 "Status Doesn't Allay Fears of Race Profiling," which first evinced implicit surprise that racial profiling affects people by race, as opposed to class, and then went on to treat the illegal practice as more regrettable than redressable, with an emphasis on how black people should react: "For some black men, the solution is to try to avoid the possibility of confrontation altogether," the paper explained, citing the story of one man who sends his wife to the front gate to meet police if the house alarm goes off, fearing "if he goes instead, they will mistake him for an intruder," and another who, on seeing a line of cars with black drivers pulled to the side of the road, pulled over himself, "figuring that was expected of black men." It's unstated whether the L.A. Times sees such "solutions" as broadly acceptable for a democratic society.
There's no mystery to the appeal of disaggregating problems of widespread bias into a million unique incidents in which victims "happen to be black": If racism is reduced to the personal and situational, the responsibility for overcoming its effects can be spread around, with black people themselves carrying the brunt. Certainly it's not appropriate to call on institutions to do anything about some people's "feelings."
Corporate media underscore this message in part by not hearing messages to the contrary, as when they extracted the "bootstraps" elements of Obama's July 16 NAACP speech, characterized in the New York Times (7/23/09) as "warning black Americans not to make excuses for their failure to achieve." (See also, e.g., "Obama Boldly Challenges Blacks in NAACP Speech," Kansas City Star, 7/17/09; "Obama Delivers Tough Talk on the Black Family," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 7/21/09.)
That Obama himself sometimes emphasizes blacks' "personal responsibility" is true, but that's not the source of elite media's fascination. Jesse Jackson got the same treatment in 1994 for comments in which he appealed to African-Americans to "take the lead" in helping their communities fight crime. Jackson presented blacks' responsibilities to help themselves alongside government's obligation to remove racist barriers; "Blacks Are Urged to Take Responsibility for Violence" (Washington Post, 1/17/94) was a typical rendering (Extra!, 5-6/94).
The idea that racism is a personal problem about which society can do nothing but soul-search serves a status quo that disadvantages people of color, but it's by no means exclusive to white people. In fact, the message was spelled out most clearly in a Washington Post editorial (7/26/09) written by an African-American. Referring to Bill Clinton's description of racism as a "cancer of the soul," the Post's Jonathan Capeheart wrote: "The cure for this corrosive cancer won't come through a government program or the courts....This is a matter of the heart, an intensely personal exercise that demands we talk to each other-one on one, face to face. Perhaps over a beer...."
The report from the U.N. special rapporteur recommended increased federal and state funding for those displaced by Hurricane Katrina, congressional investigation of resegregation in the nation's schools and housing, and "as a matter of urgency," vigorous clarification of the illegality of racial profiling, including congressional passage of the End Racial Profiling Act. Beer did not come up.
50 Comments so far
Show Allmy 2 cents worth;
If knowledge is the antidote for fear and fear results in cruelty and we know HR and the humanities cannot be imposed by force of law or arms and we know there is no single, sudden end to injustice, racism, sexism, bigotry, fear et all and there is only slow steady, fitful progress toward a more decent and humane world; if the mind is not alive to another way, another possibility within the public square of ideas, if individuals are unaware, suffering from a poverty of knowledge and understanding of human rights, there is little cause to expect them to champion, advocate or struggle for them.
Malcolm X, in a speech in Cleveland Ohio on April 3,1964; "When you expand the civil rights struggle to the level of human rights, you can take the case of the Black man in this country before the nations of the United Nations. You can take him before the General Assembly. You can take Uncle San before the World Court. But the only level you can do it on is the level of human rights. Human rights are something you are born with. Human Rights are your God-given rights. Human Rights are the rights recognized by all nations of this earth."
Dr. Martin Luther King, in his Beyond Vietnam Speech began challenging America’s fundamental priorities and called for a revolution of values.(mind-set)...He maintained that Civil Rights claims were empty without human rights including economic rights.
What we are striving for is creating another 'habit of thinking,' one that becomes second nature & is a countervailing balance to the dominant popular institutional cultural pyridine. Garbage in garbage out!
What is missing from this discussion is any recognition of both the personal & transformative process that is necessary to change attitudes & the role of education in facilitating the essential personal changes that are necessary to end racism.
We know the methodology, teach it daily over a prolonged period, we have the content (HREdLiteracy) & the material resources ready to be applied. Any questions?
Racism is not a matter of the heart. It is a matter of the subconscious. When white males go through the anal phase as children for some reason they do not acclamate well with the selfhood that is supposed that normally results. They end up associating their excrement, which they used to be proud of as babies, with impurity and filth. The older these white males become the more separated they feel from their mothers which in turn increases their desire for purity. This is why white women are put on pedastals but dominate the porn and stripper industry at the same time. White men see black men as the Oedipal threat. They practice either dominative or aversive racism toward us depending on how the abstraction and sublimation occurs. That is the only personal part of racism. It is all about the Curse of Ham and purifying the world of filth through capitalism and money, which is nothing but a metaphor for purified excrement. In other words white racism is a mental disorder operating at the subconscious level of whites and need professional medical care. Of course whites will never concede this point and we will continue down the path to destruction as the psychics and prophets have all predicted.
What is said about Obama above could be said about most of the upper class African Americans in this country. That's a topic for another discussion however. If you want to see institutionalized racism look at progressive news, radio and blogs. I cancelled my subscription to the Nation years ago because I was tired of their 97% white contributors. Air America and Huffingtonpost are no different. And these are progressives! Michael Moore mentioned this once on TV Nation. He added AAs to his staff when he realized he too was doing the same thing. Chicago's progressive talk radio station, WCPT, somehow does not have any African American or Latino hosts. How can that be in a city this diverse? And these are our progressive brethren?! It is what it is.
Very True! We indeed do need to look in a mirror.
Some of the best left-analysis found on the internet comes from Black Agenda Report and the Black Commentator. But how often have we seen commentaries from these sited here on CD? (hint).
Excellent posts, manning and jrp. You and many others on this thread get it.
maxpayne and Henry8 don't. maxpayne's ideal world scenario for employers doesn't exist in real life. Perhaps a small percentage of employers are like that, but not enough to change the black employment statistics - which are grim, and lead to negative outcomes for black families and especially the children. But this country has a long history of brutal treatment of the poor of all races. It's just that the worst treatment is reserved for blacks. And I notice that a lot of other posters who don't "get it" have stayed away from this thread.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
It's astonishing to me that so many people deny the reality of institutional racism. Such people disregard a vast body of sociological literature and the personal testimony of the victims--they know better than the victim what actually happened to them. Look how many people were willing to tell Henry Louis Gates that his arrest had nothing to do with racism. One would think that Gates is in a better position to describe what happened to him than people who weren't even there, and who have never walked in a black/brown skin. African Americans die younger than their Euro American fellow citizens; they have less wealth; they are more frequently unemployed; they are more frequently incarcerated, and for longer sentences for comparable crimes; they are more likely to be profiled and shot by the police; they are more likely to end up on death row; they are more likely to be foreclosed; they are more likely to have their right to vote compromised--and yet some people maintain that we are in a "post-racist society." One wonders what evidence would convince such people that institutional racism still exists...
jrp (October 6th, 2009 9:00 pm) -- You're so right. The disparities in lifespan, wealth, unemployment, etc., lead to one of two conclusions: either minorities are suffering from current or past discrimination, or they're inherently inferior to whites. The whites emphatically denying the existence of racism are essentially implying the second alternative.
The greatest affirmative action program ever devised was, and in many ways still is, the United States of America. Affirmative action for WHITES, that is. It's even in the original constitution, although some of the amendments added later seek to counteract that. Affirmative action for minorities was also later devised to counteract the affirmative action for whites built into our governmental system.
This nation has to choose between alternative views: either there is current racism and lingering effects of past racism; or else we've put all such racism behind us, and therefore the minorities have only themselves to blame for their short lifespan, poverty, lack of education, fragmented family structures, criminality, etc. How could anyone with a brain fail to see which alternative is the right one? Well, I guess that's what prejudice is: inability to see the truth.
jrp and manning,
Excellent points, both of you. I too have always seen an implicit racism in racism-denial.
And this inability to look at the problem analytically, as Ms. Jackson (a social scientist by education) does just another example of sicientifc illiteracy in service to an ideological agenda.
This is an outstanding article by someone I personally met at a conference on free speech here in Minnesota. It was what I would expect from her, and she hits the nail right on the head. This is a terrible problem for this entire country, and we need to stop lying and denying.
AD
Hey, it looks like I'm getting another preview message.
This is an outstanding article by someone I personally met at a conference on free speech here in Minnesota. It was what I would expect from her, and she hits the nail right on the head. This is a terrible problem for this entire country, and we need to stop lying and denying.
AD
This is an outstanding article by someone I personally met at a conference on free speech here in Minnesota. It was what I would expect from her, and she hits the nail right on the head. This is a terrible problem for this entire country, and we need to stop lying and denying.
AD
My right wing friends are all over me when I mention there may be a hint of racism - they claim it is not so, it ended decades ago and the people mentioning racism are the problem.
To say racism and/or intolerance of others does not exist in the U.S., and the majority of other countries as well, is to deny reality.
I agree that institutional racism is ignored at large but Janine ignores the fact that this is not limited to just African Americans. Latinos are heavily discriminated against and so too are Muslim and Asian Americans. Even Caucasians are heavily discriminated against. This is not just one race doing this against all races but there are conflicts amongst various races. For example, I have seen Afros vs Latinos especially in TX and CA, Cuban Americans vs Afros in Fl, Chinese and Philippino Americans against each other, etc ....
Another problem not discussed and this needs to be discussed is giving special privileges to certain races which could end up unexpectedly hurting other races. I have had concerns about affirmative action and reparations. Before anyone calls me racist, I have sympathy for Africans and African Americans who have suffered irreparable harm and deserve to be compensated. But the problem I have is that this has turned into another form of "entitlement" for their descendents. There is a limit to this. We should no doubt compensate appropriately but we cannot keep allowing "reparations" to be used as an excuse to not get out there and fight spiritually. Sometimes, I have to agree with those who say that "reparations" only spoils minorities from the day they're born. The same thing can be said of affirmative action and I can see where that can turn into reverse discrimination. If I have to pick between two people of different colors, I would pick based on the actual job criteria. Let's say person of Color A scores 75 and person of Color B scores 50. Normally, I would end up picking person of Color A for doing well but affirmative action would give person of Color B 50 points just for being that so I would be forced to pick person of Color B or else get into trouble with the law. I know this may sound controversial but I am not afraid to tell the truth. I've said it openly before even when that has resulted in getting beaten up. Just to make this clear, I don't believe in discriminating for or against any race and that's why I'm colorblind.
Speaking more on institutional racism, here's another example of various racial discrimination. I'm a straight guy who might dress a little differently but only because of health and comfort reasons. I can go for a walk through a regular white neighborhood in the suburbs with my tights under my shorts and nobody would laugh at me or says anything against me. A few women may smile and bat their eyes as if I'm some cool celebrity but that's understandable. But I can still have a regular conversation. The same cannot be said if I walk into a Latino or African American neighborhood. I would be greeted with cat calls and whistles as if I'm a girl and someone would throw a tomato at me calling me "gay" ! I guess that's why Afros and Latinos flexed their muscles against Prop 13 in CA, huh? I'm not saying that all whites approve of guys wearing tights while all minorities would find it offensive. Thanks to lack of manners and education minorities are pushed into, they laugh and react out of control. In contrast, those who are better educated are controlled in their responses even if they find it weird of me to dress like that. In most cases I can happily debate them and sometimes convince them out that it's actually ok for guys to dress like that when they can wear earrings and pink shirts with no one complaining. Besides, my wife doesn't mind it and likes it too.
Max: I see that you are also a racist, as you cannot even bother to mention the group that is MOST discriminated against in Gringoville: Native Americans.
Native Americans wasn't even touched at in this article and that's beyond the scope.
The topic is Institutional Racism.
To assert that "Even Caucasians are heavily discriminated against," without even providing an example of how institutional racism affects white people is...dumbfounding. do you know what racism is? Do you understand how 'institutional racism' works? Given your examples, it appears you haven't the slightest idea.
"Sometimes, I have to agree with those who say that "reparations" only spoils minorities from the day they're born"
Which minority group received reparations? And how were they spoiled? In order to agree with those who make that claim, you'd have to have some sort of reference in your mind. Please share it with us.
In any event, it is clear that you don't understand how reparations can be achieved or the proposals for advancing it, not only to African Americans, but the diaspora of Africans (HINT: one of the most common proposals involves International Aid).
YOur last example...illustrates a complete inability to empathise with those who have experienced racism. In fact, it's hard NOT to label you racist after reading the following:
"Thanks to lack of manners and education minorities are pushed into, they laugh and react out of control. In contrast, those who are better educated are controlled in their responses even if they find it weird of me to dress like that."
Wish to clarify?
Regards,
Peter Tosh.
"The topic is Institutional Racism."
But institutional racism is not limited to just African Americans. Other races are also affected by it in ways not covered by this article.
"In any event, it is clear that you don't understand how reparations can be achieved or the proposals for advancing it, not only to African Americans, but the diaspora of Africans (HINT: one of the most common proposals involves International Aid)."
Asian and Jewish Americans have gone through plenty of discrimination and suffering and they're still standing tall and strong. Just ask my American born wife of Indian descent. I didn't say reparations are a bad thing but when the owing is done, it's time to move on and let them grow on their own. What's wrong with giving them the freedom, power, and independence to be their own?
As for misjudging me as a racist, I should have made myself clear about the education part. I meant to include anyone who is poorly educated regardless of color. I understand that between uneducated whites and uneducated minorities, the former are kind of spared but that gives the latter no excuse to give up and get sloppier about it. If they would unite and fight back for better affordable education, then kudos to them and my apologies.
maxpayne, you're all over the map. You were quite clear about which neighborhoods you would be accosted for wearing tights (African-American and Hispanic). You could have just said working class or poor. But you didn't.
And blaming undereducated minorities for not uniting and fighting for nonexistent educational funds sounds elitist to me. I think you just came out of the closet.
If you can't see institutional racism, take a close look at minority schools. The only word for them is blighted. Are you denying that police racially profile (pulling people over for driving while black) or that personnel managers prefer white to black applicants or that judges are harsher with black defendants or that Death Row is top heavy with blacks or that realtors steer blacks away from white neighborhoods or that mortgage brokers dump minority homebuyers into subprime mortgage markets? All this and more is the institutional side of the racism coin.
By the way, Clarence Thomas sailed to the top on Affirmative Action before repudiating it. But I don't believe it is the solution to our problems. We should be investing heavily into education and social services for those at the bottom rung of our economic ladder. And I'm not talking about welfare but programs that empower people.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
It is an unpleasant topic, but maxpayne's reference to African-Americans attitudes to LGBTs, or to people who might be perceived to be LBGT, such as a guy wearing tights, is unfortunately true. It is a problem among African-American community, a problem that various African-Americans do acknowledge. Including people like Julian Bond, chair of the NAACP. There is even a term of for African-American gay people who appear / pretend to be straight / have girlfriends / get married, but then have gay affairs: going on the down low.
That is not to say that white LGBTs don't bear some of the blame too, for the antagonism, both real and perceived. People often forget that there are black LGBTs too.
And people, black LGBTs, are trying to change the attitudes, of both sides.
To tell you the truth, I feel sorry for the uneducated. I do see the problems lingering in minority schools and a lot of it has to do with the way the schools are funded and how the money is spent. I can tell you for a fact that I have come across a couple of white male colleges and admit that most students there are less intelligent and poorly mannered than students coming from minority schools.
Perhaps I wsa wrong to mistake the minority neigborhoods as the main ones being socially intolerant to someone being perceived as dressed weirdly. I haven't gotten around to walking in a rural white neighborhood dressed like that so it might be fair to say I lack enough data to keep that claim strong. My apologies.
The most intolerant neighborhoods I ever go in are the white suburban ones.
You should the mocking I get in the suburbs because I use an electric motor scooter for transportation instead of a Harley or SUV.
You are correct about the suburban neighborhoods mocking and sneering at people who drive bikes or scooters at the most instead of Harleys or gas guzzling SUVs and I don't support such intolerant attitudes. Surely, this is a major factor to keep in mind for all the oil this nation imports just to keep those gas guzzlers satiated enough.
But this also brings me to another consideration. Like the lack of unity between the LGBT and minorities, there is also a lack of unity between environmentalists and minorities. I would love to to see ethnic neighborhoods be able to afford solar panels for one thing.
A UN report guaranteed to please a certain audience.
The UN just defined itself for what it really is by electing its new leader of the General Council.
The biggest racists seem to cry racism first and loudest. They insist it must be there no matter the truth.
When you ask for specific instances, they don't really have any, they just KNOW its there. Why its common knowledge, didn't you know? Luddite racists are the norm these days among those left behind while the rest of the country moves on.
"A UN report guaranteed to please a certain audience."
Please be specific. Who is this "certain audience"?
"The UN just defined itself for what it really is by electing its new leader of the General Council."
You seem to know what the UN really is; please enlighten us.
"The biggest racists seem to cry racism first and loudest. They insist it must be there no matter the truth."
So what's the truth? Is the era of racism in America over? Or, do you believe such an era ever existed?
The "biggest racists" are not those in white hoods, but those in white collars. The "biggest racists" dismiss claims of racism while (bewilderingly) crying racism themselves.
Henry8 has said before that he acknowledges that racism still exists but that solving it requires going beyond just one race that used to be discriminated at the most. See my separate post on this thread.
A one-liner stating "I agree racism exists..." and then providing all sorts of anecdotes of how it is no longer a problem, is not a real acknowledgement.
I have read your post and it is similar. You acknowledge past racism but question its current existence. BeForKids may be onto something; you might have outted yourself, indeed! To acknowledge past racism (when you weren't alive or old enough to take part) and dismiss the current brand of institutional racism (when you're old enough to take part or take a stand against it) implies that you will take no stand (and therefore passively take part).
"I am not a politician... I only suffer the consequences."
Peter Tosh
They don't break it down by demographics either. See my other post on this thread.
Excellent piece!
Racism in the US is a hard-science verified fact shown in numerous rigorous, peer-reviewed studies performed by sociologists every year. But in current scientifically illiterate US society - deliberately made that way by corporate dumbing down in our schools and media it is all about isolated individual "feelings".
After all, smart people aren't gullible, and therefore are enemies of free enterprise.
Come to think about, everything else in the USA is about the atomized individual too. Thank you, Ayn Rand! As her desciple Thatcher said: "There is no society!" But I digress.
The only permanent solution against institutional racism is well-established by science too. It is called affirmative action. The proof in in the pudding! The only way to be sure racial discrimination is ended is to show have the measurements nor show it anymore. And the only way to do that is to make emploters, RE agents, schools, universities etc. show, with hard statistics, that they don't discriminate.
"It is called affirmative action. The proof in in the pudding!"
I cannot say that's necessarily true. It may have been necessary in the past but AA is outdated and needs to be reformed or gotten rid of.
"The only way to be sure racial discrimination is ended is to show have the measurements nor show it anymore."
That doesn't make sense. All that you have to do is just lay out the test and not use race for or against any candidate. How hard can that be?
We aren't talking about individual candidates - you are engaging in exactly the personalization Ms. Jackson was talking about.
It works like this. A certain region has a certain percentage of qualified people of various races for a certain university. Yet statistics show certain races are disproportionately represented, and a race that has been historically oppressed is under represented. What other explanation except racist discrimination in admissions, can be made? You can't say "there weren't enough qualified black students, because the statisticians correct for that. It is racism plain and simple.
Now, how do we eliminate racism against a historically oppressed group? One method we know doesn't work - simply exhorting people to color blind. Sociologists have thoroughly studied this and they have found that people only stop discriminating when, in their classrooms and workplaces, the there is sufficient presence of minorities and women doing all tasks or fields of study so that such a racial mix becomes "normal" looking. Until this state of "normalcy" is achieved, the only, way to achieve it is to require that race be a mandatory consideration, among others, for all otherwise qualified candidates. This should not be considered at all an outrageous thing to do, because job discrimination for lots of other things other than technical qualifications (like being a relative, a friend of a friend, common hobbies or sports, or just being white, is ALREADY widespread! At least it's been in all the places I've worked - and being white male myself, but otherwise mediocre in my technical achievements, it's been my salvation from hardship.
I don't mind integration and I welcome it but forcing integration can be just as bad as segregation. Using race as a mandatory consideration only spoils a race. People should not use the color of one's skin to hire or fire people and that's why I am colorblind. Hiring people based on a certain race, black, white, or whatever and not on what he or she is really qualified for only gives employers the strength to complain. Add to it, they can easily abuse affirmative action to outsource jobs to China and India for hidden slave labor and that has been going on. If going colorblind results in one race benefiting, then it is a coincidence. Whoever loses will need to find some way to catch up. If I were an employer doing the hiring, I would be glad to be colorblind. Whoever lost I would wish them well and point out what it was during the interview or testing for the job that I was concerned about and possibly recommend them the appropriate help and training so that they could fare better next time. I know it's hard and tough seeing these coincidences but that's life and companies cannot afford those who are less qualified. That's not to say that I'm totally mean about it. I know that there are jobs that bank a lot on experience and education but since I know that minorities are not as likely to afford a masters degree or expect longer experience for the job, I would test on skills, communications, employee expectations, and behavior to see who best qualifies gets the job. That should offer plenty of leeway for minorities to get in without affirmative action. Believe me, when it comes to working with educated people on the job, women and minorities tend to be reasonable and not expect too much. It is possible that I am not as well-informed about AA as I think I am.
max,
It is obvious you either didn't read or understand anything I wrote. As other have written, we already have an affirmative action syatem in place - for white males.
If such system exists, then it's time to get rid of it. I thought that was done before. Just piling on affirmative actions for each race solves nothing but creates more confusion.
What event occurred that rendered AA obsolete? In other words why do believe it was (or may have been) necessary in the past, but is no longer useful. Have the intended targets/beneficiaries of AA "made it", so to speak? Given your post below, it seems you don't believe they have "made it" and you acknowledge the existence of institutional racism.
So what has happened? Why is reform needed? By asserting that AA is "outdated" and requires reform, without so much as an example of its being obsolete (or a suggestion of reform), it appears as though you object to a level playing field (and given your many posts here, I doubt that is the case).
Regards,
Peter Tosh.
I do not believe in using someone's skin color to qualify or disqualify anyone. AA was needed when minorities were being discriminated at openly and in all walks of life but its time has come and gone. Barack Obama, Clarance Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, etc ... have made it and they didn't need AA.
Looking at the long term results, affirmative action has helped a few who really needed it but has also spoiled others. I have met Afros and Latinos who are still not sure of themselves. Perhaps the saying "if you are not anything without it, then you are nothing with it" applies. I have personally counseled these people not as a professional counselor but trying to remind them of what they can do best and I have helped them snap out of that feeling of allowing their skin color to impair their thinking. The result is they come out with a real fighting spirit and can be proud that their skin color did not stop them from achieving success. The issue I have with AA is that it allows people to goof off and get rewarded where they normally wouldn't. Of course I support a level playing field and being color blind is the way to achieve it because nobody can blame race for failure. Now we can mend AA to include all races and level out the playing field fair and square. I would love it.
I know of no instances or examples where AA has 'rewarded' those who have 'goofed off'. When used in post-sec. admissions decisions it can help to differentiate candidates, just as having a family member in the Amred Forces, family members who are alumnists or family donations to the instituions. Just as most children of alumni understand that they can not gofo off and get into Harvard on the coattails of their family connections, minorities have long understood that their race is not a 'get-in-free card.
My issue with AA is it being situated in an American context. By that I mean Americans do not learn or understand history from viewpoints beyond the text book. As such, they generally have no idea of the long-term consequences of slavery and segregation (the 'great migration' of Blacks northward, urbaniztion, 'white flight' to the subhurbs and the subsequent re-organization of school districts' financing, 'gerry mandering', etc.). These consequences live on, despite the death of segregation and slavery.
To argue that AA should 'include all races' shows the complete disregard (or lack of understanding) of history that I alluded to above. If you understood the ripple effect that these events have had throughout time, you may be less inclined to say that AA should be extended to all races. The key word is RACE. Other races, as I understand it, already do benefit from AA (Latinos, Natives, Asians, etc.). So what I'm reading, is a desire for AA to be 'extended' to include one race: yours. How and more importantly, where in the UNITED STATES, are white people subject to systematic, systemic and institutionalized racism? I'll answer for you: NOWHERE. Rich white people discriminating agaisnt poor whites is not a racial issue; it's a class issue. Poor Blacks denigrating Poor Whites is not racism, but prejudice -- the former is an institution that shapes peoples preferences (i.e. wher to live, shop and work) while the latter can only do so when the prejudice is shared by many people with POWER to shape preferences. In other words, prejudice is an individual characteristic and as bad as it is, it is nowhere near as harmful as racism, which is a societal characteristic.
"Barack Obama, Clarance Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, etc ... have made it and they didn't need AA."
They were all the BENEFICIARIES of AA. Not sure where you learned otherwise.
"the 'great migration' of Blacks northward, urbaniztion, 'white flight' to the subhurbs and the subsequent re-organization of school districts' financing, 'gerry mandering', etc."
The majority-minority districts in the south were created by both conservatives and the Black Caucus. The moderates of both parties lost. White voters were scared and angry that this silly gerrymandering was a form of affirmative action being laid against them even in districts that didn't affect them. The Democrats refused to address class issues and play the race card and they lost. TX, FL, and VA are the best examples if you look at what happened to the Democrats on the local and state levels in all three states.
"They were all the BENEFICIARIES of AA. Not sure where you learned otherwise."
Obama received 53% of the popular vote and a strong majority of the electoral vote. He did rather well in the South too. Even states that voted Mccain were not as strong Republican as they would other wise have been.
Thank you, Janine Jackson for telling the truth. It's amazing how many so-called progressive whites insist we don't have institutionalized racism. Just ask any black person.
A black woman was shot to death in her car by a Portland OR policeman. He had approached her for failing to signal for 100 feet a right turn into a parking lot. It would be unheard of for this to happen to a white woman.
I'm not sure we can lay claim to being the most racist country on the planet. Look at Israel. But then again, look at New Orleans. I will never forget Barbara Bush's comment at the Houston Astrodome. "This will do nicely for them" looking at rows and rows of cots crammed together, filled with haggard people with nothing but the clothes on their backs.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Sorry to pick a nit or two, BUT: Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians is not based on race, as the Palestinians are also semitic.
The genocide there is based on religion and culture.
luckyyou, good point. Race is only one excuse for kicking someone else in the teeth. We're a sorry lot, we humans.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
The US is hands down the most racist country on the planet.
And the really loud-mouth racists are proud of that!
Really? You americans don't travel abroad much, do you?
Whom are you addressing?
I am very surely among the most travelled folks posting here--I have lived on all continents but Oceania, and have not lived anywhere near gringoville for almost 20 years.
I am not a gringo, but am from a First Nations group, but "grew up" in Gringoville--so I feel more than capable of making the statement that I made.
Have you also lived as a roma gypsy in Europe lately? My guess is not.
Not sure exactly what "slobbering comment" means. If it was a failed attempt at offending me then f you and the horse you rode on.
But my point was that the US is not "hands down the most racist country in the world". I am not as traveled as you are but i have been places and trust me, minorities, whatever they are, have it good in the US.
Exactly. I've been around a lot of bigots during some phases of my life (including my parents), and I've never ceased to be amazed how good saying terrible things about people who aren't like them makes them feel, how pumped they get. They don't have a clue as to how despicable they are. Quite the reverse, they think they're great. I didn't get it even as a middle child when my father's sneery sing-song imitation of black dialect stopped being funny and started to seem sick.
It's so deep within them that I'm not sure there is a cure.
obama is the whitest black guy in the republic
during the campaign when race was introduced obama shrivelled like the nwo shill he is
when michele made a statement to the effect that she was proud of her country for the first time the right wing racists hit the roof and nwo shill obama ran for cover
to deny racism in the us is to deny the fact that the sky is blue
obama has in effect nullified any discussion of race - the fact that he is black and in the white house is irrelevant to the discussion because obama is wall street's boy and last time i was there (about 9 months ago) i didn't see hardly any brothers and not one hip hop motherfucker in sight
we don't need this cardboard shill
we need another malcolm x in this country doing what obama will never do and that is to speak the truth