Dispatches from Left Field: Race, Prejudice, and Outcome
This week, Dispatches considers the effects of racism past and present and how different groups perceive it.
Over the past few weeks, I've been involved in several conversations which encouraged me to reflect on how other groups perceive racism. I was very offended by some of the things said by some ignorant people, and I was inspired to try and develop a framework for understanding racism and prejudice.
This framework is not a completed product. It is something I'm still trying to fill out and understand. I appreciate any insight you can offer. If I've left anything out, it is certainly unintentional. I hope that this column can help to generate a fruitful discussion.
In general, the ignorant conversationalists suggested that because things like segregation and jim crow have ended, that African Americans have equal opportunities. (I do not mean to insinuate that African Americans are the only targets of racism--in fact, anyone can perpetrate racism on anyone else--however in the case of these conversations, blacks were the subject.) They also suggested that African Americans have no cause for complaint. They implied that the era of racism is gone and said that the election of President Obama proves it. I think that thoughts like these are the result of a very limited view of racism.
I would hypothesize that many whites (I don't know if it's "most" or not) only consider racists to be perpetuators of what I call "active racism." We all know about active racism. It is an overt action on the part of the racist either verbally or physically. It can also be in the form of choosing not to hire someone or patronize an establishment due to race.
Minorities, on the other hand, would consider other things racist or at least influential on racial outcomes. One such type of behavior could be dubbed "passive racism." While this categorization might seem dubious to some, it occurs when someone crassly dismisses racial concerns, as was the case with those who inspired this column. In reality, many things have influenced the state of race relations in this country and continue to do so today. To disregard them merely because they are not overt acts of racism is itself a form of prejudice. Additionally, passive racism can be attitudes and beliefs that don't manifest themselves in actions, but which can result in negative stereotypes.
Contributing to disparate racial outcomes is "rippling racism." I call it that because the effects of past racism can ripple through generations long after racists have ceased. Take white flight for example. In this case, racism in the post-war era, especially after Brown v. Board of Education, middle and upper class whites fled cities to avoid desegregated schools. Today, despite the integration of public schools, urban schools are the filled with poverty. Their underperformance can be traced back to the loss of middle class students decades ago. There are essentially two school systems in the United States in this day and age, and I think one could blame past (or rippling) racism for it.
"Institutionalized racism" is another form of discrimination that affects outcomes. It occurs when behaviors and policies are ingrained overtime in institutions. Housing is an excellent example. Restrictive covenants and blockbusting both typify this type of racism. Over time it has led to segregated neighborhoods, which can be very difficult to change.
I hope that President Obama's election will start a substantive and helpful discussion on race in America. However, I am also fearful that many will use this election as an excuse to ignore passive, rippling, and institutional racism. Still, I believe that Americans truly are willing to acknowledge the results of past and present racism. I think that November's vote proves that we are willing to discuss solutions.
What have been your experiences with racism?
18 comments:
This morning, I saw a short blurb in the Washington Post. Apparently, school segregation is on the rise in the United States.
Here's a link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50D7CY20090114
Kudos! A well thought out piece and a sincere effort to get a genuine dialogue started.
I don't know, Blue... Isn't "reverse racism" simply just "racism?" Nothing about the word "racism" means "white vs. the other."
Of course, I guess many people have taken it to mean as much, but if racism isn't necessarily directional, there's no need to mention the potential to reverse it.
BLUE
Did you miss this part of the article?
"I do not mean to insinuate that African Americans are the only targets of racism--in fact, anyone can perpetrate racism on anyone else--however in the case of these conversations, blacks were the subject.
Also, would you please answer Michael's questions? I've always wondered how "reverse racism" works. Is it like a boomerang or more like the opposite of racism-because its reversed?
My boyfriend is black. He opposes the idea of "reverse racism" and tells me that he doesn't think it's different from any other kind of racism.
Ed, I am fully aware anyone can be racist.
When I think of reverse racism, I think of the fact that historical and to a certain point ongoing, white people have been racist to blacks. In turn, blacks assume white people are racist, which is racist in its own right. Reverse racism is racism, but I guess my thought is that it is rooted in previous experiences with other racists from a certain ethnic group.
Matt, I just find it interesting that your boyfriend would have that point of view. I wouldn't necessarily agree with his view after my experience. I have been insulted due to my color of skin because of what some other white person has done. I have dated a few black guys as well as other gays of color and the experience is not a universal one.
Gays of color? Like rainbows?
I do not like the term "reverse racism" and I don't really think that racism works the same way against all groups.
Because whites are the dominant group in the US and have the most access etc. an act of discrimination against people of color comes with the force of that access and with the support of a system already set up against people of color.
To me that constitutes racism...not when people of color are uncomfortable with white people and don't want them in their lives...because while I personally think that is not the most useful response to a racist society, this attitude operates in a whole different manner than racism.
I do love the analysis of "rippling" and "institutionalized" racism, and very much agree that these are issues that have a firm grip on today's society. The following report is an excellent outline of the current state of racial inequality.
http://www.faireconomy.org/news/state_of_the_dream_2009_the_silent_depression
To educate myself more on the issue, I've begun reading Tatum's "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? and Other Conversations about Race". So far she seems pretty astute, but I have one reservation.
She too limits the term "racism" only to the systemic phenomenon, and prefers the word "prejudice" for private acts and attitudes - if I get her meaning correct. Therefore, only whites can be racist in her nomenclature. I have a problem with that because the words "racism" and "racist" aren't emotionally neutral. They come freighted with a fund of rage and hatred, and imply evil. Now these attitudes are probably correct towards racism. But by saying only white people can be racist, you are implying, whether you would like to or not, that only white people can be evil in this regard. I do not believe this. Furthermore, I find the implication unacceptable.
All people can be racist. Whites definitely have the upper hand still in the US, and "systemic racism" surely benefits white people. But blacks can be racist as well, in thoughts and in deeds. It may not be systemic, but it is no less real. White people haven't cornered the market on evil.
just because you don't like the term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. assuming an entire group of people are racist based on skin color is reverse racism.
i don't like racism in any form. i have been shamed of the color of my skin on several occasions, and have stood up to racists on others behalf or my own.
some of us are color blind.
landoftrolls- If in a vacuum a person of color hated white people, i would call that racism. In this society, it is a reaction that can't be separated from the fact that people of color exist in a society structured against their best interests. That doesn't mean that people of color can't be evil or anything, or target white people in attacks.
I think one of the problems is connecting racism with evil. Someone isn't evil just because they are racist, and while that doesn't mean "racist" is a positively connoted term, it does mean that for Tatum, a person of color who is "evil" and pointedly/viciously attacks white people is no less evil just because the term prejudice is applied instead of racism.
BluSeqPerl-If by colorblind you mean that physical difficulty to distinguish between some colors, sure, some of us are colorblind. But the mere fact that you have stood against racists illustrates that you can see skin color and acknowledge its politicization
Also, the reason I don't like the term is because I think it brings inaccurate connotations with it (essentially that race discrimination operates equally both ways)...in other words I do not think that "reverse racism" effectively describes the sentiment people try to use it for.
With all due respect to Tatum's authority as a scholar and an educator, I just don't think she's powerful enough to uncouple the term "racism" from the connotation of "evil". All our lives we have been taught, in so many words, that racism is evil, and rightly so. But when someone then comes out and says "Only white people can be racist" it is next to impossible to shake off the implication that "only white people can be evil in this way". I think there needs to be a tweaking of the nomenclature to account for the different kinds of racism, and I will freely grant that there is a systemic racism toward blacks that whites do not experience. But to so narrowly define "racism" to the systemic privileging of whites over blacks is to take a sledgehammer word and turn it on only one group of people (and essentially everyone in that group) regardless of Tatum's (or others') intentions.
In the (admittedly rare) case in which a black person targets a white person for violence based on the white person's race, calling it merely a case of prejudice doesn't do the incident justice. The bottom line is that in the US of today, "prejudice" connotes "bad", while "racism" connotes evil, and pontificating on alternate connotations for both in a few books or on a few blogs won't change this, in my humble opinion. If blacks want whites to cooperate in dismantling the structures of systemic racism, I think it would be very helpful if folks such as Tatum could find better, less alienating, terminology to express themselves. Simply saying whites are racist, and blacks cannot be racist will not get the conversation very far.
Of course, I continue to respect Tatum, and I won't stop reading her book just because of her heavy-handed use of terminology.
To the author:
it might help you to include how active, passive, rippling, and institutionalized racism coexist.
(i could be wrong with the following, but im including it as an example)...
it seems to me that racism is MOST alive and MOST dangerous through our institutions. so how does institutionalized racism fuel active and passive racism?
how does rippling racism influence our perception of what is racist vs. what isn't racist (passive racism)?
...because right now, it seems like these labels are four ideas floating in space. how do they connect?
runlikethewind6, what I meant by being color blind is that I do not care what skin color a person is. It does not mean I do not realize that racism and racial conflicts exist.
I just think we as humans of all shapes, sizes, and colors, can learn a lot from each other.
BLUE
I have been insulted due to my color of skin because of what some other white person has done. I have dated a few black guys as well as other gays of color and the experience is not a universal one.
This reeks of identity politics and a victimization mentality. How can you possibly think that being insulted based on other people's bigoted ideas is not universal? People who discriminate, especially if they do not know you, are doing it based on historically generalized stereotypes or on “what some other [insert race] person has done.” Ask any person of any race or ethnicity and they will all tell you that people make negative assumptions about them based on stereotypes about their heritage.
You don't have a corner on that market.
And the term "reverse racism" is entirely manufactured. There is no consistent, widely accepted definition of the term, but if you can find me one, please do.
As best I can tell, its origins are derived from the backlash over affirmative action programs. When a white person lost out on a position that went to a minority or a woman, who may or may not have been better suited for the job, that person usually cried "reverse racism." But some people validate the term by saying racism is about power and because minorities wield far less than whites, it is inherently impossible for them to be racist (which I think is total bullshit). So, when they exhibit behavior that would be considered "racist," it is instead termed "reverse racism." Bigotry is bigotry.
I don't mean to be dismissive. I believe that the experiences you have had are hurtful. However, you are not alone, and insisting that your pain is somehow different or exclusive to you is indicative of the divide and conquer paradigm. As long as we are mired in the notion that other people's pain is less than our own or nonexistent, we are forced to have conversations like these instead of putting our heads TOGETHER to figure out how to advance an agenda that will actually result in something other than arguing.
Ed-
I'm going to admit to being slightly confused about your comment. I cannot tell if the "you are not alone" comment is supposed to extend into a larger "anyone can be racist against anyone" idea. Mostly I can't exactly tell how you are interpreting the quoted portion of Blue's comment.
What I would say is, I agree that the "divide and conquer" thing is an issue, but if you are saying that arguing whether racism works both ways or not is an example of the divide and conquer issue, i disagree.
I think that racism does effect everyone adversely, but by and large it is very clear that white people come out on top, and to miss that is to overlook one of the main components of racism. Equality is not going to be achieved if white people do not acknowledge the existent perpetration of white privilege.
What I would say is arguing who is more oppressed, LGBT people or people of color, IS an example of divide and conquer, and the idea of working together seems especially important there, at the intersections of marginalized identities.
This is not to say white people and people of color shouldn't be working together, I certainly think that is the most constructive. But it becomes problematic if white people all of a sudden try to say "we are victims of racism too"
Also Blue,
I completely identify with that sentiment.
I think part of combating racism is learning to affirm identities as well as standing up against discrimination (in some ways to say both of these are the same thing anyway). In other words, naming identities and recognizing that there are distinct histories to these identities is important, hence my objection to "colorblind."
Because while I agree that everyone deserves equal access and all that equality entails, to be blind to difference does not really allow this to happen.
I completely agree with your final statement that we can all learn a lot from each other :)
Ed,
The insults were more accusations of being racist when not intended. My goal was not the divide and conquer paradigm. The author requested the The New Gay readership if there was anything missing. I brought up the topic of reverse racism which led to the following topic thread.
runlikethewind6,
i understand your hesitance with "color blind". What I meant by color blind is how I interact and engage with people. Everyone has a different story and background, but we all have a lot in common regardless of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and a number of other things.
Post a Comment