Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts once wrote “[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.“1 On its face, this colorblind policy sounds like a noble approach to solving America’s race problem — and for the sake of brevity, we can all agree that America does, in fact, have a race problem. However, upon closer inspection of this colorblind policy an insidious nature emerges; it is predicated on the false premise that, today, all races are operating on an even playing field. In other words, it denies that America’s unfair racial policies and practices of yesterday have any bearing on the unequal playing field that we continue to find ourselves on today.
We would like to think that, in America, all of us are free to become wealthy and successful with just a little bit of hard work. While we can certainly point to a handful of examples that reinforce this perception, a broader perspective reveals that such cases within the minority community are the rare exceptions to what is more frequently the rule for White families in America. Despite our many commendable strides towards equality in America, Whites today are still more likely than Blacks, Latinos and other minorities to inherit the type of wealth, property, and education from their families that turn the “American Dream” into the “American Reality.” This fact usually tends to go unnoticed by most Americans who are honestly oblivious to the role that race has played in determining their station in life. However, there are a determined select few, like those who subscribe to the notion articulated by Chief Justice Roberts above, who are very much aware of America’s racial disparities but who, nevertheless, choose to deny that race should continue to play any further role in ameliorating America’s race problem. In short, denying racism has become the new racism.
As the cartoon above brilliantly illustrates, racial discrimination has historically permeated America’s federal, state and local governments as well as its private sector. For example, the Naturalization Act passed by Congress in 1790 literally limited U.S. citizenship to immigrants who were “free white persons.” This opened the door for millions of European immigrants to become citizens while simultaneously closing the door for Black, Latino, Asian and other non-White immigrants who also came to America during the same time. And since citizenship is required in order to vote, millions of White immigrants availed themselves of the political process early on in America’s history, crafting laws and policies which continue to benefit White families to this day.2 [for a more detailed history on U.S. laws that have specifically benefited Whites, click HERE]
The private sector is no better. For example, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than Whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. Unemployment in the private sector is 8.1% for White workers, however that same rate is 16.8% for Black workers.
In the past, regardless of whether racism took place in the private or public sector, it used to come in the unmistakeable form of Archie Bunker. Today, however, not so much. Decades of affirmative action programs — and not to mention the election of America’s first Black President — have caused a resentment to build up within a select group of Whites who feel that these “racial preferences” have not only eradicated racism for minorities, but have simultaneously transformed Whites into the new victims of modern racism. According to this group, there is no longer a need to level the playing field. As far as they are concerned, there is no connection between the centuries of systemic racism perpetrated against minorities and where minorities are today, nor is there any connection between the centuries of preferential treatment for Whites and where Whites find themselves today. For them, it is far more convenient to simply deny these inequalities than it is to acknowledge them.
Perhaps nowhere is this new practice of denying racism more pronounced than in higher education, where the term “underrepresented minority” (“URM”) is, according to this group, synonymous with “inferior.” A few years ago, I was invited to Cardozo School of Law in New York City to speak at a formal debate on the subject of whether affirmative action in legal education is still needed. There were many valid arguments put forth by both sides, but one exchange still stands out to me to this day. One of the other members on the panel, a very personable and well respected White law student from NYU Law School, stated quite succinctly that our society should not give preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race because nobody can control what race they are born into. I responded “I agree with you 100%! Our society absolutely should not give preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race. You are absolutely correct. Now if only more people like you had made that exact same point 200 years ago, then you and I wouldn’t be sitting here having this debate today.” He had no rebuttal. He approached me after the debate, thanked me for my comment and admitted that he had never thought of the issue that way before. For him, framing the argument in that context made him realize that he had been unintentionally denying the connection between yesterday’s racism and where we are today.
The racial discrimination committed by both private and public actors throughout America’s history has resulted in two basic outcomes: (i) access to a better life in terms of wealth, education, etc. has been — and continues to be — limited for minorities; and (ii) that same access has been — and continues to be — more readily available to Whites. For the most part, we seem to be able to acknowledge that the first prong is true, but for some strange reason the second prong is extremely controversial. We have little trouble connecting the dots between slavery, Jim Crow, and the disadvantaged position that many Blacks find themselves in today, but connecting the dots between those same things and the advantaged position that many Whites find themselves in today makes some people uncomfortable. It is more convenient to simply deny that racism has played — and continues to play — any role in where we find ourselves today than it is to admit the truth: most Whites are not wealthy based solely on their own merit and most Blacks and other minorities are not poor based solely on laziness. This is not to say that there aren’t any Whites who are, in fact, self-made millionaires who were born into poverty, nor is it to say that there aren’t scores of minorities who are, in fact, lazy. However, to accept as true that all Whites have made it on their own merit and that any minorities who haven’t done likewise are simply “not trying hard enough” is to deny racism itself.
Fortunately for all of us, blatant and overt racism has, for the most part, become a thing of the past in America.3 However, this new movement of denying racism is just as toxic as blatant racism. Denying our past can only doom us to repeat it, therefore it is critical that we not only educate ourselves on the role race has played in America’s past, but that we also expose those who purposely try to deny these historical facts. Although we may never be able to completely solve America’s race problem, we can’t afford to allow inconvenience to revise its history either.
Footnotes:
1. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)
2. The Homestead Act of 1862 took over 270 million acres (10% of the total land mass of the United States) from Native Americans and transferred it into the hands of White male land owners.
3. Of course we all know that blatant and overt racism still exists in 2011, but the frequency of this type of racism today pales in comparison to the incidence of blatant and overt racism that was going on in 1911 or 1811.
[Originally posted here]
Article by Urban Politico
The Urban Politico is a collaboration of four writers, who hold each other in high esteem, to address social, political and other issues which resonate within the populations in which they feel most connected; race, age, socioeconomic and political status, personal experience and any other identifying factor that can join us, rather than divide us. The Janitor is an attorney in NYC and he and Godson worked together as organizers on the 2008 Obama Campaign. Godson, a published author, is currently Chief of Staff for a State Representative in Philadelphia. The Fed, as the name implies, is in the Federal Gov in Washington D.C. and works with law makers on the Hill. These 3 writers share very similar views on many issues, however, all 3 have a different perspective. This blog will be a platform that will bring forth many new and fresh ideas and concepts that are extremely noteworthy.
Urban has written 122 article(s) for us.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
This was a great piece. Very enlightening.
Thanks.
Thid was very very interesting. It had given me so much needed perspective.
Glad to be of service.
the greatest trick the devil ever does is to convince you he does not exist.
LOL. Good one.
Always try to tell my friends this. Stop pretending it doesn’t exist. I think those people make the statement overt. Race is an issue period. I always feel like I’m the militant one because people tend to shy away or ignore the issues when it comes to our skin color. While we’re getting more educated, somehow we’re “learning” that we’re getting ahead and on the same playing field.
Stop pretending it doesn’t exist.
And that’s the hardest part. People are often blind to their own privilege.
Yes. ‘People are often blind to their own privelge’ And this can go across the board of races and relate to any topic. so true.
Very good piece. It puts me in the mind of Time Wise’s “White Like Me” which goes into the whole ideal of white priviledge. First time I had ever seen a white man admit that whites were in fact benefiting from racism.
Thanks and good point, White Like Me will forever remain a break through in race relations.
Toure said it best, “Racism is like the weather: we only talk about its extremes, but it’s always there.”
Exactly.
Now this is a good read. Thanks for posting.
Nobody talks about “Chinese privilege” in China. Nobody talks about “Haitian privilege” in Haiti. Nobody talks about “Japanese privilege” in Japan. Nobody talks about “Somalian privilege” in Somalia. Antiracists talk about “white privilege” in white nations, ONLY white nations. They say they are antiracist. What they are is antiwhite. Antiracist is a code word for antiwhite.
Well, I wasn’t going to comment on this article, but your comment sort of dragged me into this.
The reason why the countries you came up with are irrelevant to a racial discussion (in America at least), is that none of those countries were built on the backs of immigrants. All the people of those countries are united by ethnicity. White people are not united by ethnicity. An American man doesn’t ethnically identify himself with a Russian. Hell, an American man barely identifies himself with a British man. So if we’re going to have a conversation about race, let’s separate it from ethnicity.
Now, let’s talk about racism: if a Black American accuses a white American as being a racist, what is the difference between an African immigrant accusing him of being a racist? (Let’s presume that he is, just for the kicks) Well, the difference is that a Black American, is an American, he has more ethnic commonalities to a White American, than a White French man. So if he is accusing a white man of racism, the accusation will be based off of what her perceives to be bias based on skin color, not on nationhood: i.e. “He’s treating me different because I have a different skin color” An African immigrant, on the other hand, has a weak foundation for his argument because the white man could either be discriminating against the man based off race or ethnicity, neither of which he could probably prove in reality.
Whiteness is a myth, and is the cause of the myth of blackness. In fact, blackness only exists because whiteness exists. Blackness was created to combat White racism and discrimination…it was created for no other reason. If instead of whiteness, there was American, British, Italian, Russian etc, there would be Jamaican, American, Nigerian, Haitian etc. Whiteness and Blackness exists to combat each other in America. And as game theory suggests, if a man continues to load up in weapons, his enemy is likely to do the same. So the more white people identify themselves based off the color of their skin, the more black people identify themselves based off of skin color.
For the record, here’s the secret to bringing an end to anti-racists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who I know give white people tremors of rage: simply have white people stop identifying themselves as white. Respect your ancestors, and claim their culture. And low and behold, if you dismiss your color and embrace your culture, under what basis do the AntiRacist have to fight you? If you’re a Jew and you only hire Jews, how can you be attacked for being racist? However, if you’re a Jew and you only hire whites…there’s an opening, and Jesse Jackson and the whole Hymie-town brigade are going to come yapping, chasing all your sponsors into the mountains.
So in European nations where all nations are united by white ethnicity your argument does not hold true.
Nobody is saying we must flood African countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural. Nobody is saying we must flood Asian countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural. Nobody is saying we must flood South American countries with mass immigration to make them more multicultural.
Multiculturalism and mass immigration into White countries and White countries only is GENOCIDE.
Anti racism is a code word for anti White.
That’s completely wrong. Europeans are not united based off whiteness, they are united based off of geography and self-interest. Argentina and Chile are mostly white nations, yet they have little to no ethnic similarities to white people in Europe or the United States.
Another correction, Asians do no consider themselves Asians. They consider themselves as Chinese, Japanese, Thai, N. Korean, S. Korean etc. Make a mistake and call them the wrong one, and see their reaction. The same thing goes for Africans, Caribbeans and Latin Americas. The only reason all these people join together collectively, is because people like yourself, would much rather identify with your color, than with your culture.
As for multiculturalism, I think it’s a stupid idea. The thing that aught to define every culture, and every inhabitant of that culture, is the values that that it stands by. And in all the history I’ve studied, I’ve never heard or read about “white values.” I’ve read about Greek values, Roman Values, British Values, but I sure as hell never read about white values. What could they possibly be?
Finally, multiculturalism and mass immigration are both things that white politicians and white businessmen support for the sake of lower wages, higher profit margins, and political power. They are not the result of vast conspiracies of foreigners to take over a country, though many media outlets like to spin it that way. The truth is that people always emigrate to where the capital is at or where freedom is, how politicians choose to manipulate such a part of nature is of their own concern.
But you see, all this arguing and debate should be aimed towards the people who have gone against the values of your nation, whatever you consider them to be. But anyone who bases their values on skin color will only see a betrayer of his nation’s values in the form of a person with a different tone of skin. In other words, attacking immigrants, and not the power and influence letting the immigrants take over a nation, is completely futile and a waste of time.
You guys are certainly taking an interesting tangent from the article, but I don’t necessarily think this proposition is true:
Anti racism is a code word for anti White.
If Anti racism = anti white, then racism = white? That can’t be true.
white paranoia
Honestly, I think everyone agrees that racism at some level still exists and racism is part of America’s history. The problem I see is that policies and laws targeting race (e.g., affirmative action) seem to have run their course. Many Blacks benefited but not enough. The Black community is in dire straights and I worry over the fate of the community at large especially as technology is advancing at light speed.
What people struggle with is trying to determine when and where racism is actively affecting the lives of Black Americans. Statistics present undeniable facts about the state of different groups but they fail to pinpoint the problems and causes. Therefore, it’s difficult determining what is caused by our past of racist policies, what is caused by active racist policies and what is caused by other factors like the breakdown in family structure and institutions.
People are starting to question laws that seek to “fix” discrimination and racism. They are more apt to relax the laws and see where we are as a nation, inject some self determination and community responsibility so we can objectively see how Blacks are creating and seizing opportunities. Without assuming a level playing field, it is very difficult to objectively measure and track racism.
Good points. Although I slightly disagree with you that affirmative action has “run its course.” Affirmative action is certainly about to become extinct if the SCOTUS has anything to say about it with this recent U. Texas case that is making its way up to the them. But “about to die” and “run its course” are two different things.
Even though I am a proponent of affirmative action when it is used responsibly, the problem that I have is that too many Whites (who make up the majority of the country) still view it as “unfair.” Thus, a stigma attaches that if you are Black or Latino in higher education or professional employment that requires higher education, you are only there because you are Black or Latino. You have no merit whatsoever. Just like the legacy admit — but oh wait, that’s an acceptable form of affirmative action. My bad.
So a part of me actually wouldn’t mind if the SCOTUS kills affirmative action next year just so all these critics (who are too blind to see the benefits that they have received by the virtue of being born White in a majority White country) can finally shut the hell up.
Unfortunately I still don’t think white critics of affirmative action or white critics of black people (HA) would let the demise of affirmative action prevent them from being racist or trying to attach a stigma to black people.
Aff Action may provide an easy whipping boy but the people who use it as such are going to be like that even without it.
This is true.
Well written. I have used this point in every non official racial and affirmative action debate that I have participated in, and trust it’s been plenty. But for some reason many fail to see how ‘old racism’ ties into present day racism. This is why we can’t afford to be lazy, b/c the gap can close, but as usual, minorities, blacks have to work twice as hard to do so.
Thanks, and you’re right. There is an inability (or perhaps an unwillingness?) to connect the dots between old racism and where we are today. Some people get it with enough coaching, but others refuse to see it and prefer that we simply “get over it.”
Like others have mentioned, its hard to see your own privileges, whatever they may happen to be.
That was deep!!!!
Stupid commentary to say the least.
Maybe just maybe if you stop using “racist” as a crutch you’ll get some where chump.
I don’t see Asians, Arabs or latinos bitching.
Get yourself educated and get some diginity and self-respect.
THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD REPRESENTS A PROBLEM IN THE NEGRO COMMUNITY. YES – PREJUDICE BASED ON RACE EXISTS; WE ALL KNOW THAT. YESTERDAY, WHILE PERUSING THIS SITE, I CAME UPON A DEBATE BETWEEN NEGRO MALES ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TEACHINGS OF W.E.B. DuBOIS, MARCUS GARVEY, ETC., IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY. I THOUGHT THE DEBATE WAS SILLY AND USELESS. I ASSUME THESE NEGRO MALES RESEARCHED THESE FIGURES ON THEIR OWN TIME. THESE FIGURES ARE DEFINITELY NOT DISCUSSED IN AMERICA’S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. IN WHICH WAY DO THE DEBATERS THINK YOUNG PEOPLE CAN ACCESS THIS INFORMATION IN A CODIFIED WAY? TO PLACE FOCUS ON THE, “TALENTED TENTH,” RIDICULES THOSE BELOW THE STANDARD. EVERYONE HAS THE ABILITY TO SUCCEED AT A LEVEL WHICH IS SUITABLE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCE. TO SAY NEGRO LEADERS NEED TO BE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE. “TALENTED TENTH,” IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON