Support NeoGAF

[Loakum]

Great thread. *subbed*

 

[Piecake]

I am an avid reader, so I absolutely enjoy the links you have shared, and would love to learn of more books on the subject.

The thing that's frustrating about all of this is how many people will dismiss the knowledge in your posts as "ancient history," whereas I see the information as key to getting to the root of all of this fear, animosity, and hatred towards one another. I honestly feel that many people in this country hate black people, and truly have no idea why they may feel that way.

Our problems concerning race are so deep, we really need to take the time to educate ourselves on the whole picture as best we can. Come payday, I plan on picking up some of the books on these subjects, although I admit so much of it is hard to read. It often Spurs my mood and depresses me when I discover how little has changed for this country on the inside, not just in outward actions and behavior. Racism has gotten really fucking sneaky. It's more dangerous now because of it.

I think the final portion of The Wars of Reconstruction, which is about The Spirit of Freedom Monument controversy, really shows that it is not ancient history.

The rancorous debate in Selma appeared almost sedate by comparison to the bitter discussion in Charleston over the proposed Spirit of Freedom Monument. The brainchild of African American social studies teacher Henry Darby, the statue was designed to memorialize black abolitionist Denmark Vesey and two of the Africans who also swung from the gallows during the summer of 1822, Jack Pritchard and Monday Gell. In a city filled with statues and plaques and busts to slaveholding Founding Fathers and Confederate officers, Darby thought it wrong that Vesey, whose burial place is unknown, had no marker of any sort. After years of lobbying, in 2007 the city of Charleston allocated twenty thousand dollars toward the statue and approved a design. Most members of the city’s Arts and History Commission voted to support the project, which features Vesey, a carpenter and lay minister at the city’s AME congregation, holding a Bible in one hand and tools in the other. One dissenting member complained that Vesey was an unsuitable subject for a monument. “Is it appropriate to massacre individuals,” he wondered, “or to slowly win one’s freedom through the process? That’s what it boils down to.” In reality, two years before Vesey’s conspiracy, the state assembly had passed new legislation banning self-purchase and private manumissions, but the lone dissenter declined to explain what peaceful “process” existed for Carolina bondmen.9

Other critics promptly weighed in. One local radio talk-show host claimed Vesey, who had purchased his freedom in 1799 but whose children remained enslaved, was “a guy who didn’t want to just kill his oppressors, he wanted to kill all white people—women, children, everybody.” Assuming that the ultimate goal of slave rebelliousness was the murder of whites, rather than the liberation of black Americans, the radio host denounced Vesey as “a would-be terrorist.” Yet another opponent wrote to the Charleston Post and Courier, insisting that Vesey’s plan, which was to culminate in the escape of thousands of black Carolinians to Haiti, “was nothing more than a Holocaust.” Rather more surprising, a professor of history at the Citadel, a college originally housed in an armory constructed in the wake of Vesey’s conspiracy, also expressed doubts about building a monument “to a man bound and determined to create mayhem.” The professor, Kyle Sinisi, who taught a course called “The War for Southern Independence,” also darkened the skins and inflated the numbers of those mixed-race freedmen—the small handful of self-styled “browns” who owned slaves—by opining that “many black freedmen owned slaves.” Sinisi added that slavery had yet to “gain the stigma attached to it today,” a theory evidently unknown to the dozens of enslaved Americans who ventured their lives in 1822 to win freedom for themselves and their families.10

Complicating matters was the question of just where to erect the monument. Proponents instinctively thought of Marion Square, one of the largest parks in the city. The Square also had symbolic value. The original Citadel was nearby, as was the 1865 AME church designed by Robert Vesey Sr. (A more recent AME church now sits at that location.) But a tall pillar topped by a statue of proslavery senator John C. Calhoun dominates the square, which remains owned by two militia companies founded in the nineteenth century, neither of which looked favorably on a memorial to a free black who orchestrated a slave conspiracy. By 2000, supporters of the Spirit of Freedom had settled upon Hampton Park. Having once been home to the Union cemetery at the Race Course and Jockey Club, the site also resonated with those who wished to remember the first Memorial Day and the heady postwar moments of hope. Although yet short of necessary funds to transform the small model into a full-size statue, the city staged a groundbreaking on February 1, 2010. Despite unusually cold winds, hundreds turned out to celebrate what Mayor Joe Riley praised as “the indomitable spirit of humanity’s desire for freedom.” Speaking at the ceremony, the Reverend Joseph Darby laughed away the morning’s chill. “God ordered this weather for everyone who said it would be a cold day” in South Carolina “before there was a statue for Denmark Vesey,” he remarked.11

Once again, critics peppered the local newspaper with letters of complaint. As before, most writers charged that Vesey had planned to murder “every man, woman and child in the city,” while another, with shades of Thomas Dixon Jr., added “arson and rape” to the inventory of the abolitionist’s alleged crimes. Tour guide and writer Mark Jones insisted that “any number of African Americans in Charleston” were more deserving of statues than Vesey, Gell, and Pritchard, as the rebel leaders had intended to use “violence” to liberate the city’s slaves. Advocates of the memorial responded that Charleston, and indeed most of the nation, had erected hundreds of statues to white soldiers and statesmen who employed war and revolution to achieve independence or to resolve the nation’s woes.

Requiring all shrines to African Americans to memorialize only pacifists, some noted, was an ahistorical double standard. As historian Bernard E. Powers Jr. observed, once peaceful change had been rendered impossible by the state legislature, “violent revolution [was] inevitable.” Although Vesey, who had purchased his freedom decades earlier, was no longer a slave at the time of his rebellion, in his old age he was “the voice of the voiceless,” Powers remarked. “There’s something uniquely American about that.”12

The yet-unfinished Denmark Vesey monument is designed to commemorate the long history of African American struggle in South Carolina. When completed, it will be one of the very few memorials to black Americans in Charleston, a city otherwise brimming with statues and monuments to slaveholding politicians and Confederate leaders. Although Vesey was hanged in 1822, the black abolitionist’s son Robert Vesey resurfaced in Charleston at war’s end and took part in the rededication ceremony at Fort Sumter in April 1865. The younger Vesey, a carpenter like his father, also designed the rebuilt AME Church in Charleston, replacing the one razed by Charleston’s white population forty-three years earlier. Courtesy Charleston Post and Courier and sculptor Ed Dwight.

Many Carolina whites thought otherwise. One persistent letter writer announced himself “bitterly opposed” to the statue, charging that the proposed Spirit of Freedom Monument “could be Charleston’s parallel to the 1990s O. J. Simpson verdict.” If likening a lay minister who hoped to free thousands of enslaved Americans, including some of his children, with a wealthy athlete accused of murdering his white wife struck many newspaper readers as poor history, it was hard to tell from online postings on the Post and Courier’s website. One writer, failing to note that the rebels had intended to commandeer ships in the harbor for escape to Haiti, instead claimed that conspirators had planned to “create their own oppressive regime” in the state, “in which they could become the elite.”

As a reminder of just how interconnected the antebellum years were with the Civil War and its aftermath, another writer thought to add that Lincoln “was far more racist than Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, or Jefferson Davis.” The Confederate president’s unsuccessful last-minute proposal to arm a small number of black men was inflated into a plan “to eventually end slavery and give blacks full equal rights.” Vesey “was no Sparticus [sic],” mused a third.13

So nervous were many whites that critics proposed a number of other candidates for the memorial. Demonstrating that recent history is easier to navigate than a contested past, letter writers advocated black physicist and astronaut Ronald McNair, who died in 1986 aboard the space shuttle Challenger. Another suggested rock music pioneer Chubby Checker, while a former president of the College of Charleston advanced the name of Georgia-born John C. Frémont, a white alumnus of the college. More appropriate suggestions included war hero and congressman Robert Smalls, who died in Beaufort, South Carolina, in 1915. As part of the city’s Civil War commemoration, two small markers to Smalls had been erected in various parts of Charleston. The Reverend Darby welcomed the tributes to the congressman but observed “that had Smalls not succeeded in commandeering a Southern ship,” he would “have been executed like Vesey.” Smalls or Frémont or the black soldiers in the Massachusetts Fifty-fourth should be remembered by history, Darby agreed, for “they were as much advocates of freedom as was Denmark Vesey.” But a proper remembrance of the past demanded more than just counter monuments to men like Smalls or Martin Luther King Jr. It required a full, complete accounting of a troubled, complex past, which included the mass execution of men found guilty of conspiring for their freedom.14

The statue remains unbuilt. Denmark Vesey’s monument is a bare spot in a park on the outskirts of the city. For both the detractors and proponents of the proposed statue, the dispute, bitter though it might be, pertains only to the prewar enslavement of Africans and African Americans in antebellum Charleston. For Robert Vesey, who spent the years from 1822 to 1865 virtually in hiding, the struggle was far longer. But the end of the war meant a new day for the aged former slave, and for his son Robert and daughter-in-law Anna. Reconstruction made it possible for Robert Sr. to rebuild his father’s church and to join Charleston’s Mechanics’ Association; and it gave his son, Robert Jr., the opportunity to open an account at the city’s branch of the Freedman’s Savings Bank. Reconstruction meant long-deferred dreams were at last realized. By the time the elder Robert Vesey died in 1870, the former slave Robert Smalls, whom he knew from the Fort Sumter rededication ceremony, had helped craft a state constitution that allowed both men to cast a ballot. Robert Vesey Jr., born in 1832, surely lived to see Smalls elected to the national House of Representatives from Carolina’s Fifth District; but like his infant son who perished in 1874, he probably died before witnessing the way a new kind of war murdered the promise of Reconstruction.

A single statue cannot re-create, cannot memorialize a multifaceted past. But if the Spirit of Freedom Monument is ever completed, perhaps a fourth figure should be added to the pedestal, that of Robert Vesey Sr., when he was a twenty-two-year-old carpenter. Denmark Vesey had once considered taking his second wife, Susan, and their free children and emigrating to Liberia. But his son Robert and his other children remained enslaved, so Vesey resolved “to stay, and see what he could do for his fellow creatures.” For black Americans and their radical Republican allies, Reconstruction was that better future, the nation’s first truly progressive era. If activists won permanent voting rights or integrated transportation in Pennsylvania and New York, the era’s reforms ended in most of the republic by 1901. No forest of statues can make up for that lost potential or can erase the guilt of those who drove activists like George Henry White from office. But when as many monuments, South and North, are erected to Benjamin F. Randolph, Octavius Catto, and James M. Hinds—reformers who lost their lives during the wars of Reconstruction—as currently venerate proslavery politicians and Confederate generals, we will know that Americans have finally come to understand the meaning of those decades.15

 

[Mumei]

I would recommend Aopstles of Disunion. It is a very short book, but shows that white supremacy was one of the main causes of the Civil War. Of course, the main cause was slavery since white supremacy was birthed from slavery, but it was fascinating and disgusting how open these people were about fighting to the death so they didn't have to live in a society where black and white men were equals.

This website seems like it has put up a lot of primary sources that the author of that book relied on

http://civilwarcauses.org/commish.htm

I honestly think much of our history, especially Southern history, is a case study in how twisted people's minds can become.

Just look what happened to that little girl in my post. In all likelihood she was a perfectly ordinary person in other respects - and downright monstrous in one.

Figboy79, I think it has gotten better, and I think in particular that how racism is expressed and how it functions has changed - and I think on balance even that is an improvement. It is harder to pin down, but the very fact that it is so much more obfuscatory in its nature now out of necessity is an improvement. And I agree entirely about what you said - it may be ancient history, but it's that history that has led us to this point. If you don't understand the history, you don't understand the present.

I'd also suggest reading Bonilla-Silva's Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America (which someone else also recommended earlier in this topic!). The introductory paragraphs, which I posted before in another thread:

Nowadays, except for members of white supremacist organizations, few whites in the United States claim to be "racist." Most whites assert they "don't see color, just people"; that although the ugly face of discrimination is still with us, it is no longer the central factor determining minorities' life chances; and, finally, that like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they aspire to live in a society where "people are judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin." More poignantly, most whites insist that minorities (especially blacks) are the ones responsible for whatever "race problem" we have in this country. They publicly denounce blacks for "playing the race card," for demanding the maintenance of unnecessary and divisive race-based programs such as affirmative action, and for crying "racism" whenever they are criticized by whites. Most whites believe that if blacks and other minorities would just stop thinking about the past, work hard, and complain less (particularly about racial discrimination), then Americans of all hues could "get along."

But regardless of whites' "sincere fictions," racial considerations shade almost everything in America. Blacks and dark-skinned racial minorities lag well behind whites in virtually every area of social life; they are about three times more likely to be poor than whites, earn about 40 percent less than whites, and have about an eighth of the net worth that whites have. They also receive an inferior education compared to whites, even when they attend integrated institutions. In terms of housing, black-owned units comparable to white-owned ones are valued at 35 percent less. Blacks and Latinos also have less access to the entire housing market because whites, through a variety of exclusionary practices by white realtors and homeowners, have been successful in effectively limiting their entrance into many neighborhoods. Blacks receive impolite treatment in stores, in restraints, and in a host of other commercial transactions. Researchers have also documented that blacks pay more for goods such as cars and houses than do whites. Finally, blacks and dark-skinned Latinos are the targets of racial profiling by the police, which, combined with the highly racialized criminal court system, guarantees their over-representation among those arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, and if charged for a capital crime, executed. Racial profiling on the highways has become such a prevalent phenomenon that a term has emerged to describe it: driving while black. In short, blacks and most minorities are "at the bottom of the well."

How is it possible to have this tremendous degree of racial inequality in a country where most whites claim that race is no longer relevant? More importantly, how do whites explain the apparent contradiction between their professed color blindness and the United States' color-coded inequality? In this book, I have attempted to answer both of these questions. I contend that whites have developed powerful explanations - which have ultimately become justifications - for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them for any responsibility for the status of people of color. These explanations emanate from a new racial ideology that I label colorblind racism. This ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late 1960s, explains contemorary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics. Whereas Jim Crow explained blacks' social standing as the result of their biological and moral inferiority, color-blind racism avoids such facile arguments. Instead, whites rationalize minorities' contemporary status as the product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks' imputed cultural limitations. For instance, whites can attribute Latinos' high poverty rate to a relaxed work ethic ("the Hispanics are mañana, mañana, mañana - tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow") or residential segregation as the result of natural tendencies among groups ("Does a dog and a cat mix? I can't see it. You can't drink milk and scotch. Certain mixes don't mix.").

Color-blind racism became the dominant racial ideology as the mechanisms and practices for keeping blacks and other racial minorities "at the bottom of the well" changed. I have argued elsewhere that contemporary racial inequality is reproduced through "new racism" practices that are subtle, institutional, and apparently nonracial. In contrast to the Jim Crow era, where racial inequality was enforced through overt means (e.g., signs saying "No Niggers Welcome Here" or shotgun diplomacy at the voting booth), today racial practices operate in a "now you see it, now you don't" fashion. For example, residential segregation, which is almost as high today as it was in the past, is no longer accomplished through overtly discriminatory practices. Instead, covert behaviors such as not showing all available units, steering minorities and whites into certain neighborhoods, quoting higher rents or prices to minority applicants, or not advertising units at all are the weapons of choice to maintain separate communities. In the economic field, "smiling face" discrimination ("We don't have jobs now, but please check later"), advertising job openings in mostly white networks and ethnic newspapers, and steering highly educated people of color into poorly remunerated jobs or jobs with limited opportunities for mobility are the new ways of keeping minorities in a secondary position. Politically, although the civil rights struggles have helped remove many of the obstacles for the electoral participation of people of color, "racial gerrymandering, multimember legislative districts, election runoffs, annexation of predominately white areas, at-large district elections, and anti-single-shot devices (disallowing concentrating votes in one or two candidates in cities using at-large elections) have become standard practices to disenfranchise" people of color. Whether in banks, restaurants, school admissions, or housing transactions, the maintenance of white privilege is done in a way that defies facile racial readings. Hence, the contours of color-blind racism fit America's new racism quite well.

Compared to Jim Crow racism, the ideology of color blindness seems like "racism lite." Instead of relying on name calling (niggers, spics, chinks), color-blind racism otherizes softly ("these people are human, too"); instead of proclaiming that God placed minorities in the world in a servile position, it suggests they are behind because they do not work hard enough; instead of viewing interracial marriage as wrong on a straight racial basis, it regards it as "problematic" because of concerns over children, location, or the extra burden it places in couples. Yet this new ideology has become a formidable political tool for the maintenance of the racial order. Much as Jim Crow racism served as the glue for defending a brutal and overt system of racial oppression in the pre-civil rights era, color-blind racism serves today as the ideological armor for a covert and institutionalized system in the post-civil rights era. And the beauty of this new ideology is that it aids in the maintenance of white privilege without fanfare, without naming those who it subjects and those who it rewards. It allows a president to state things such as, "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education," yet at the same time characterize the University of Michigan's affirmative action program as "flawed" and "discriminatory" against whites. Thus whites enunciate positions that safeguard their racial interests without sounding "racist." Shielded by color blindness, whites can express resentment toward minorities; criticize their morality, values, and work e thic; and even claim to be victims of "reverse racism." This is the thesis I will defend in this book to explain the curious enigma of "racism without racists."​

Also, in reference to ostensibly colorblind arguments used to advance anti-black / white supremacist political aims (which is what Shake Appeal was talking about earlier), here's Foner on Andrew Johnson, showing us just how early these excuses get trotted out:

To the utter surprise of Congress, the President vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau Bill. Moreover, rejecting a conciliatory draft written by Seward, which criticized the bill's specifics while acknowledging a federal responsibility for the freedmen, his message repudiated the Bureau entirely, deriding it as an "immense patronage" unwarranted by the Constitution and unaffordable given "the condition of our fiscal affairs." Congress, he pointed out, had never felt called upon to provide economic relief, establishing schools or purchase land "for our own people"; such aid, moreover, would injure the "character" and "prospects" of the freedmen by implying that they did not have to work for a living. These matters, Johnson went on, should not be decided while eleven states remained unrepresented, and at any rate the President - "chosen by the people of all the States" - had a broader view of the national interest than members of Congress, elected "from a single district."

This was, to say the least, a remarkable document. In appealing to fiscal conservatism, raising the specter of an immense federal bureaucracy trampling upon citizen's rights, and insisting self-help, not dependence upon outside assistance, offered the surest road to economic advancement, Johnson voiced themes that to this day have sustained opposition to federal intervention on behalf of blacks. At the same time, he misrepresented the aims of Congress - calling the Bureau "a permanent branch of the public administration," which it was not - and avoided any expression of sympathy for the freedmen's plight. As for Johnson's exalting himself above Congress, this, one Republican remarked, "is modest for a man . . . made President by an assassin."​

 

[Piecake]

Just look what happened to that little girl in my post. In all likelihood she was a perfectly ordinary person in other respects - and downright monstrous in one...

Yep, it is really hard to comprehend. I will definitely put the Racism book on my to-read list. The New Jim Crow brought up that topic a bit, and I found it quite fascinating, so It would be interesting to read a book that really goes at that topic in-depth.

Also, I think I edited my post too late, but here is that part again.

As for rewriting history, The Wars of Reconstruction and This Mighty Scourge have two fascinating chapters on the South successfully rewriting history to further their ends and make them look better.

My guess is that the Reconstruction book will be old hat to you after the Foner book, but if you can borrow it, I would still recommend reading the rewriting history chapter. This Mighty Scourge is excellent.

A bit more info, This Mighty Scourge talks a great deal about how Southern politicians and organizations were able to influence education and educational textbooks to expose their views while the Wars book deals more with novels and movies (least I think). For example:

Du Bois’s careful research was no match for new media. If Dixon’s novels reached fa greater audiences than did either Lynch or Dunning, it would be a motion picture that would embed the notion of Reconstruction as a vindictive failure in the white mind for much of the twentieth century. Filmmaker D. W. Griffith, the son of a Confederate cavalry officer, had already made a number of short movies about the Civil War. His dream was to film Dixon’s first two novels, especially The Clansman, which Dixon had already adapted into a successful stage play. Griffith offered Dixon ten thousand dollars for the rights to the play and hired Dixon to co-author the script. In a time when movies typically lasted ten minutes and ran on a single reel, Griffith envisioned an epic production filmed in color; budget concerns forced him to abandon the use of color film, but his final cut ran just over three hours. The plot adhered faithfully to Dixon’s novel, with Gus, still lacking a surname and played by white actor Walter Long in blackface, dying at the hands of hooded vigilantes in the name of southern civilization. At an advance screening, the film contained its original name, until Dixon enthused, “It should be called The Birth of a Nation,” reflecting his belief that a unified country of

white supremacists had emerged from the ashes of Reconstruction.14 Having spent themselves into considerable debt in making the film, which ran well over budget, Griffith and Dixon had to ask an unheard-of ticket price of two dollars. Ever the savvy businessman, Dixon, who was already plotting a sequel to be based on the third volume of his trilogy, The Traitor, thought to cash in on his university friendship with Woodrow Wilson. The Virginia-born president was already on record as a critic of Reconstruction, having depreciated black voters as “ignorant dupes” who “blindly followed the political party which had brought on the war of their emancipation.” Dixon was able to arrange the first-ever showing of a film at the White House, assuring the president that as viewers of the movie would be transformed into “sympathetic Southern voters,” there “will never [again] be an issue of your segregation policy.” Enthralled by the film, Wilson pronounced it “like writing history with lightning,” adding, “My only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” Black editors were horrified by the president’s endorsement. One Indianapolis publisher wondered “how Mr. Wilson and his associates could view the picture favorably,” and while Wilson’s domestic policies had already alienated northern black voters, he had no wish to disaffect white progressives. Wilson promptly informed AME bishop Alexander Walters that he had not approved of the film, and the White House quietly spread word that the comment had been mistakenly attributed to Wilson by advisor Joseph Tumulty.15

The African American community was alarmed over the passions aroused by the film, and no wonder. Houston audiences screamed “lynch him!” while watching Gus pursue actress Lillian Gish. In Lafayette, Indiana, a theater patron shot and killed a black teenager after watching the movie, and advocates of residential segregation passed out flyers demanding new ordinances outside St. Louis theaters. Du Bois and the NAACP called for a boycott of the film and urged the National Board of Censorship to reverse its stamp of approval. After a call to the White House confirmed the fact that the president had seen and liked the film, a majority of the Board endorsed the movie, although Rabbi Stephen Wise, a dissenting member, denounced it as “indescribably foul and loathsome.” A Boston theater made national news by refusing to sell tickets to blacks, assuming they were there to protest.

In fact, they were, and among the crowd were Boston Guardian editor William Monroe Trotter and the Reverend Aaron W. Puller. When Trotter demanded a ticket, a policeman “punched Trotter in the jaw” and arrested both men for “inciting a riot.” Judge John G. Brackett, the Republican son of former governor John Quincy Adams Brackett, saw it differently, ruling that “the two persons responsible for the near riot were the policemen” and that the theater owner was in violation “of the equal rights laws” of the state for selling tickets only to whites.16

After Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward White, once a Confederate soldier and still a Klansman, publicly endorsed the film, the black press redoubled its efforts to have the film banned. Griffith had a First Amendment right to his views, numerous editors argued, just as theater owners had a similar right not to book a film designed “to inflame racial passion.” Trotter succeeded in having the film banned in Lynn, Massachusetts, and following more white-on-black violence, most Manhattan theaters stopped showing the film. Ohio governor Frank B. Willis, a Republican and the son of a Civil War veteran, barred the film from his state on the grounds that it was “mob-inciting,” although the uproar over his decision only motivated whites in other states to flock to still-open theaters, making Birth of a Nation the highest grossing film until 1939.17

Worse was to follow. The infant film industry, like any business enterprise, spawned imitations of a successful product. Within months the stunning financial returns of Birth of a Nation motivated Fox Films to churn out a short silent, The Nigger. Based on a play of the same name by Edward Sheldon, the film was essentially Dixon’s epic without the battle scenes. In the movie, an unnamed African American—portrayed by the assistant director in blackface—literally frothing at the mouth, assaulted a white girl wandering through the woods and committed what a subtitle describes as “the usual crime.” Klansmen with bloodhounds tracked and lynched the rapist, but determined to escalate the violence over that in Birth, the black man was then burned at the stake. Once again, the black press condemned the film. The film was “as vicious, harmful, and mob-inciting as any” in Dixon’s movie, the editor of the Cleveland Gazette remarked. “Only a thoroughly prejudiced white could fail to see this.” A representative of the trade journal Moving Picture World joined the chorus, charging that the artless film was a “brutal appeal to the most dangerous human passions and prejudices.” If vulgar and lacking cinematic merit, Sheldon’s film merely preyed upon the same central theme disseminated by Dixon and Dunning: that the key flaw in Reconstruction was that it had unchained vulgar, brutal African American men.

 

[Mumei]

Piecake, I'd been meaning to ask you for suggestions on Civil War and Reconstruction reading, and it looks like I won't have to~

Also, Racism Without Racists was the first book I read about racism, besides the reading material we read in my African American Politics class in college, which I'm embarrassed to admit that I honestly can tell you I didn't learn nearly as much as I did by reading through a couple dozen books on my own.

... Anyway.

It actually makes for an excellent primer to The New Jim Crow, precisely because of that connection.

And on the subject of bias, I remembered something from Herbert Gutman’s The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, which explodes the myth the slavery had destroyed family life or the impulse towards familial feeling among the freedmen or devalued marriage, or whatever else Moynihan got wrong. In Appendix C, there is an extended passage about Philip A. Bruce’s The Plantation Negro as a Freeman, which served as a missing link between popular views of African American decline in the 1880s and “scientific” racism in the 1890s. This worked argued that blacks could not manage themselves, that emancipation caused a degradation in their social and moral condition, that they were unaware of the difference between virtue and vice, that black parents were typically “morally obtuse and indifferent”, and that Emancipation had loosened “African” impulses. He concluded that the abolition of slavery, having cut off black people from “the spirit of white society” resulted in “intellectual reversion” and “further moral decadence.”

How was this received?

Southern editors praised it with enthusiasm, and so did northerners who felt it a detached, objective, and informative work. Popular Science Monthly said the book would “dispel any too ideal view of the black race which the reader may hold.” The Princetonian found it “unprejudiced and impartial[/i],” “a book every American should read.” So did the Boston Daily Advertiser, which described Bruce’s methods as “impersonal as a scientist’s analysis of some Antediluvian animal.” The same newspaper called Bruce “an intelligent Southerner . . . apparently free of prejudice” and agreed that “freedom, instead of bettering” the black had “perverted him.”​

The Philadelphia Evening News, the Hartford Times, and others offered similar praise for the work. And just a year later, the First Mohonk Conference on the Negro Question took place, and delegates defined the “Negro Problem” as the “black family.”

Apart from the cluelessness of the assertion, I think the most remarkable thing is that the work wasn’t praised for its defense of white supremacist attitudes (though that was surely part of why it was praised), but that it was perceived as a dispassionate, objective, fair-minded, and impersonal analysis. It should give anyone pause when they consider themselves to be truly objective, to consider how they might also be blind to their own prejudices or the prejudices on display in arguments they find persuasive.

 

[SapientWolf]

There's a combination of reasons. When black men are jailed, it's usually for non-violent drug offences - black people are much more likely to be profiled and targeted by police. Plus, due to racial disparities in wealth, black people are much more likely to need to depend on court-ordered public defenders, which often don't provide adequate service. And that's not even going into racial and prejudicial bias. There are factors at essentially every step along the way that result in black people being much more likely to be incarcerated.

I have to agree. It's a complex and multifaceted problem that defies any attempt at a quick, easy solution. I think the legacy of institutional racism has created situations and environments that precipitate unfavorable outcomes for the black people in them, and ending racial bias alone is not enough to resolve the issue. Combating the crisis would require years of crisis level work and funding, at a national level, but the political attitude is callous indifference at best.

Due to how actions in the past created the current situation, even apathy is harmful. The attitude that all races have equal opportunity now is harmful. Maintaining the status quo is harmful. It isn't enough to say that the individuals in the justice system exhibit racism. Nearly every aspect of modern American life is affected by racism, past and present, and the consequences all add up.

 

[Piecake]

Piecake, I'd been meaning to ask you for suggestions on Civil War and Reconstruction reading, and it looks like I won't have to...

Well, my favorite Civil War book is Battle Cry of Freedom. If you want an excellent one-volume, but comprehensive history of the period this is the book to read.

Apostles of Disunion Like I said, this is short and sweet. Its main purpose is to disabuse anyone that the South seceded and fought for anything but the preservation of slavery and white supremacy.

A World on Fire I thought this was a very entertaining book and looks at the civil war from a British perspective as well as an American foreign policy perspective. I don't know how academically rigorous it is considering that it wasn't written by someone with a doctorate, but I couldnt find anything wrong with it.

This Mighty Scourge Excellent collection of articles on some interesting aspects of the Civil War. Recommended, especially his chapter on Jesse James and rewriting history.

This Republic of Suffering This book is about how The Civil War changed America's conception of death and dying. Interesting book that I probably would have liked more if I didnt listen to it. It is a bit too abstract for that. I would definitely check it out if you are interested in the topic

Freedon National This is THE book if you want to learn more about the process of emancipation and the opinions, views, and politics surrounding that debate. I am not sure if I totally agree with it, but this might also be a book that suffered a bit from listening to it.

The Fall of the House of Dixie Interesting book, but probably not required unless you find Southern social history, especially class tensions, planter douchebagyness, and Southern peace movements fascinating. It complicates the history more, which is always nice.

So yea, I would definitely read Battle Cry, Apostles of Disunion and Freedom National. If the other books sound interesting, check them out because I really liked them all.

I do want to read this

Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory

A whole book on memory, memory creation, creating history, etc and its impact on history and social relations sounds fascinating.

 

[JaggedSac]

Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States had some good stuff about it if I recall. Basically, rich folks keeping poor folks down. Same as it is now, same as it always will be.

 

[TacticalFox88]

For the first time in my life I think I'm angry that I was born with dark skin.

This thread...

Just...

Fuck me.

 

[NegroNinja]

For the first time in my life I think I'm angry that I was born with dark skin.

This thread...

Just...

Fuck me.

Yeah after a while it gets tiresome being constantly reminded that this country doesn't value us all. I don't know how I haven't gone crazy yet.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Reading these accounts are absolutely depressing. I never heard about any of this before.

 

[Valhelm]

Reading these accounts are absolutely depressing. I never heard about any of this before.

If you're American, that's in no small part due to the failings of public history education.

Racism needs to stop being taught as a problem that ended in the 1960s. It's great to learn about the Civil Rights Movement, but often it's brought up in schools for the wrong reason.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Just look what happened to that little girl in my post. In all likelihood she was a perfectly ordinary person in other respects - and downright monstrous in one.

Figboy79, I think it has gotten better, and I think in particular that how racism is expressed and how it functions has changed - and I think on balance even that is an improvement. It is harder to pin down, but the very fact that it is so much more obfuscatory in its nature now out of necessity is an improvement. And I agree entirely about what you said - it may be ancient history, but it's that history that has led us to this point. If you don't understand the history, you don't understand the present.

I'd also suggest reading Bonilla-Silva's Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America (which someone else also recommended earlier in this topic!). The introductory paragraphs, which I posted before in another thread:

Nowadays, except for members of white supremacist organizations, few whites in the United States claim to be "racist." Most whites assert they "don't see color, just people"; that although the ugly face of discrimination is still with us, it is no longer the central factor determining minorities' life chances; and, finally, that like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they aspire to live in a society where "people are judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin." More poignantly, most whites insist that minorities (especially blacks) are the ones responsible for whatever "race problem" we have in this country. They publicly denounce blacks for "playing the race card," for demanding the maintenance of unnecessary and divisive race-based programs such as affirmative action, and for crying "racism" whenever they are criticized by whites. Most whites believe that if blacks and other minorities would just stop thinking about the past, work hard, and complain less (particularly about racial discrimination), then Americans of all hues could "get along."

But regardless of whites' "sincere fictions," racial considerations shade almost everything in America. Blacks and dark-skinned racial minorities lag well behind whites in virtually every area of social life; they are about three times more likely to be poor than whites, earn about 40 percent less than whites, and have about an eighth of the net worth that whites have. They also receive an inferior education compared to whites, even when they attend integrated institutions. In terms of housing, black-owned units comparable to white-owned ones are valued at 35 percent less. Blacks and Latinos also have less access to the entire housing market because whites, through a variety of exclusionary practices by white realtors and homeowners, have been successful in effectively limiting their entrance into many neighborhoods. Blacks receive impolite treatment in stores, in restraints, and in a host of other commercial transactions. Researchers have also documented that blacks pay more for goods such as cars and houses than do whites. Finally, blacks and dark-skinned Latinos are the targets of racial profiling by the police, which, combined with the highly racialized criminal court system, guarantees their over-representation among those arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, and if charged for a capital crime, executed. Racial profiling on the highways has become such a prevalent phenomenon that a term has emerged to describe it: driving while black. In short, blacks and most minorities are "at the bottom of the well."

How is it possible to have this tremendous degree of racial inequality in a country where most whites claim that race is no longer relevant? More importantly, how do whites explain the apparent contradiction between their professed color blindness and the United States' color-coded inequality? In this book, I have attempted to answer both of these questions. I contend that whites have developed powerful explanations - which have ultimately become justifications - for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them for any responsibility for the status of people of color. These explanations emanate from a new racial ideology that I label colorblind racism. This ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late 1960s, explains contemorary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics. Whereas Jim Crow explained blacks' social standing as the result of their biological and moral inferiority, color-blind racism avoids such facile arguments. Instead, whites rationalize minorities' contemporary status as the product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks' imputed cultural limitations. For instance, whites can attribute Latinos' high poverty rate to a relaxed work ethic ("the Hispanics are mañana, mañana, mañana - tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow") or residential segregation as the result of natural tendencies among groups ("Does a dog and a cat mix? I can't see it. You can't drink milk and scotch. Certain mixes don't mix.").

Color-blind racism became the dominant racial ideology as the mechanisms and practices for keeping blacks and other racial minorities "at the bottom of the well" changed. I have argued elsewhere that contemporary racial inequality is reproduced through "new racism" practices that are subtle, institutional, and apparently nonracial. In contrast to the Jim Crow era, where racial inequality was enforced through overt means (e.g., signs saying "No Niggers Welcome Here" or shotgun diplomacy at the voting booth), today racial practices operate in a "now you see it, now you don't" fashion. For example, residential segregation, which is almost as high today as it was in the past, is no longer accomplished through overtly discriminatory practices. Instead, covert behaviors such as not showing all available units, steering minorities and whites into certain neighborhoods, quoting higher rents or prices to minority applicants, or not advertising units at all are the weapons of choice to maintain separate communities. In the economic field, "smiling face" discrimination ("We don't have jobs now, but please check later"), advertising job openings in mostly white networks and ethnic newspapers, and steering highly educated people of color into poorly remunerated jobs or jobs with limited opportunities for mobility are the new ways of keeping minorities in a secondary position. Politically, although the civil rights struggles have helped remove many of the obstacles for the electoral participation of people of color, "racial gerrymandering, multimember legislative districts, election runoffs, annexation of predominately white areas, at-large district elections, and anti-single-shot devices (disallowing concentrating votes in one or two candidates in cities using at-large elections) have become standard practices to disenfranchise" people of color. Whether in banks, restaurants, school admissions, or housing transactions, the maintenance of white privilege is done in a way that defies facile racial readings. Hence, the contours of color-blind racism fit America's new racism quite well.

Compared to Jim Crow racism, the ideology of color blindness seems like "racism lite." Instead of relying on name calling (niggers, spics, chinks), color-blind racism otherizes softly ("these people are human, too"); instead of proclaiming that God placed minorities in the world in a servile position, it suggests they are behind because they do not work hard enough; instead of viewing interracial marriage as wrong on a straight racial basis, it regards it as "problematic" because of concerns over children, location, or the extra burden it places in couples. Yet this new ideology has become a formidable political tool for the maintenance of the racial order. Much as Jim Crow racism served as the glue for defending a brutal and overt system of racial oppression in the pre-civil rights era, color-blind racism serves today as the ideological armor for a covert and institutionalized system in the post-civil rights era. And the beauty of this new ideology is that it aids in the maintenance of white privilege without fanfare, without naming those who it subjects and those who it rewards. It allows a president to state things such as, "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education," yet at the same time characterize the University of Michigan's affirmative action program as "flawed" and "discriminatory" against whites. Thus whites enunciate positions that safeguard their racial interests without sounding "racist." Shielded by color blindness, whites can express resentment toward minorities; criticize their morality, values, and work e thic; and even claim to be victims of "reverse racism." This is the thesis I will defend in this book to explain the curious enigma of "racism without racists."​

Also, in reference to ostensibly colorblind arguments used to advance anti-black / white supremacist political aims (which is what Shake Appeal was talking about earlier), here's Foner on Andrew Johnson, showing us just how early these excuses get trotted out:

To the utter surprise of Congress, the President vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau Bill. Moreover, rejecting a conciliatory draft written by Seward, which criticized the bill's specifics while acknowledging a federal responsibility for the freedmen, his message repudiated the Bureau entirely, deriding it as an "immense patronage" unwarranted by the Constitution and unaffordable given "the condition of our fiscal affairs." Congress, he pointed out, had never felt called upon to provide economic relief, establishing schools or purchase land "for our own people"; such aid, moreover, would injure the "character" and "prospects" of the freedmen by implying that they did not have to work for a living. These matters, Johnson went on, should not be decided while eleven states remained unrepresented, and at any rate the President - "chosen by the people of all the States" - had a broader view of the national interest than members of Congress, elected "from a single district."

This was, to say the least, a remarkable document. In appealing to fiscal conservatism, raising the specter of an immense federal bureaucracy trampling upon citizen's rights, and insisting self-help, not dependence upon outside assistance, offered the surest road to economic advancement, Johnson voiced themes that to this day have sustained opposition to federal intervention on behalf of blacks. At the same time, he misrepresented the aims of Congress - calling the Bureau "a permanent branch of the public administration," which it was not - and avoided any expression of sympathy for the freedmen's plight. As for Johnson's exalting himself above Congress, this, one Republican remarked, "is modest for a man . . . made President by an assassin."​

Again, bravo.

Yeah Racism with out Racists is a must read. I promise any white person that read it will find it uncomfortable (the author says as much in the opening) as you'll see thoughts and ideas you yourself have probably expressed at some time or another. Its a powerful read as you really feel and start to understand your own implication in the crime.

On of the interesting findings I remember for the book was how good white lower class women were at empathizing and understanding racism that men and the middle class.

 

[Amir0x]

Man I wish I would have reserved the second post, I'm out of text space for the OP and Mumei is info bombing all this great stuff lol

 

[CesspoolofHatred]

Man I wish I would have reserved the second post, I'm out of text space for the OP and Mumei is info bombing all this great stuff lol

I handled compiling the Confessions thread well enough.

Give me a moment, and I'll see what I can do.

 

[NEO0MJ]

So, is there any way to "fix" the ghetto problem? It feels to me that they a big role in the current predicament of black america. Don't hurt me if I said something wrong I'm not from the US and don't have a good picture of the inner working of the country.

 

[Valhelm]

So, is there any way to "fix" the ghetto problem? It feels to me that they a big role in the current predicament of black america. Don't hurt me if I said something wrong I'm not from the US and don't have a good picture of the inner working of the country.

What's the ghetto problem?

Are you saying that Black criminals are responsible for the current plight of Black Americans? Or that white city planners who designed poor neighborhoods are responsible?

 

[Rembrandt]

So, is there any way to "fix" the ghetto problem? It feels to me that they a big role in the current predicament of black america. Don't hurt me if I said something wrong I'm not from the US and don't have a good picture of the inner working of the country.

Not without pissing off a lot of people. Ghettos basically formed out of legal segregation. They move us far away then neglect and ignore us.

 

[CesspoolofHatred]

Alright, here we go. Included both Piecake and Mumei in this because they've both been hella informative in this thread. If anyone thinks these links should be named differently, just give me a shout.

A Broad Historical Context

Land Ownership, Housing, and the Wealth Gap

The Patrol

The Burnings of Schools, Killings of Voters, and the Spread of Misinformation

The Murder of Claude Neal

Lynching

A First Chance at Liberty

The Unfinished Monument of Denmark Vesey

Color-Blind Racism

The Taint of "A Birth of a Nation"

From Regular Racism to "Scientific" Racism

More Reading Material

 

[Wynnebeck]

I think Nas said it best on Rule:

Yo, niggas ain't forget shit, know what I'm sayin?
Niggas ain't forget nothin
Men, women and children killed by the police and shit
Niggas ain't gon' forget that, you know what I mean?
Yo, what this war just show me is like, whatever you want out of life
Whatever you feel is rightfully yours, go out and take it
Even if that means blood and death
You know, that's what I was raised up on, that's what this country's about
This is what my country is, and my country's a muthafucka

 

[NEO0MJ]

What's the ghetto problem?

Are you saying that Black criminals are responsible for the current plight of Black Americans? Or that white city planners who designed poor neighborhoods are responsible?

City planners who designed them are responsible. They seem like such a terrible environment to grow up in and really hamper the quality of life and potential future of their residents.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

Damn, super well put together OP. Really impressive, but also really depressing.

 

[theignoramus]

The Murder of Claude Neal

One of the most depressing and sick things Ive read.

 

[EXMaster]

I'll attempt to point out something uplifting among the ocean of depressing, discouraging information in this thread. Despite all that Blacks in America have faced and continue to face today, with the deck being stacked against them so absurdly, they've somehow managed to carry on with their lives, and survive between generations the best that they could. I think that's a testament to just how resilient the Black race is (or perhaps that speaks about the will that human beings have to survive among harsh, unfavorable conditions). A Black person could look at the stuff posted here and just say "fuck it, might as well forgo all the trouble and kill myself off if this is what I have to deal with". This country may not value Blacks, but Blacks clearly value themselves since many want to be educated, successful, raise families, etc. and I think that's the most critical thing to hold on to because without that, there will truly be no hope left.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Excellent thread, made for a nice read and most likely to be referenced in the future when topics of racism come up.

And to go a little off-topic here and without intending any offense, I'm curious to why asian minorities aren't held under the same level of scrutinity compared to other minorities in the US such as blacks or latinos. That's not to say asians aren't affected by racism, but its definitely not to the degree as the two I've listed.

First thought that comes to mind is that asians generally have a lighter skin tone similar to whites. Though from anecdotal experience I find that hard to believe (half filipino with tanned/dark skin).

 

[Amir0x]

Alright, here we go. Included both Piecake and Mumei in this because they've both been hella informative in this thread. If anyone thinks these links should be named differently, just give me a shout.

A Broad Historical Context

Land Ownership, Housing, and the Wealth Gap

The Patrol

The Burnings of Schools, Killings of Voters, and the Spread of Misinformation

The Murder of Claude Neal

Lynching

A First Chance at Liberty

The Unfinished Monument of Denmark Vesey

Color-Blind Racism

The Taint of "A Birth of a Nation"

From Regular Racism to "Scientific" Racism

More Reading Material

oh man it just barely fits into the OP when made as links like this! Fantastic! Thank you!

 

[double jump]

I'll attempt to point out something uplifting among the ocean of depressing, discouraging information in this thread. Despite all that Blacks in America have faced and continue to face today, with the deck being stacked against them so absurdly, they've somehow managed to carry on with their lives, and survive between generations the best that they could. I think that's a testament to just how resilient the Black race is (or perhaps that speaks about the will that human beings have to survive among harsh, unfavorable conditions). A Black person could look at the stuff posted here and just say "fuck it, might as well forgo all the trouble and kill myself off if this is what I have to deal with". This country may not value Blacks, but Blacks clearly value themselves since many want to be educated, successful, raise families, etc. and I think that's the most critical thing to hold on to because without that, there will truly be no hope left.

hope this post doesn't get buried cause it's a good one.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

I'll attempt to point out something uplifting among the ocean of depressing, discouraging information in this thread. Despite all that Blacks in America have faced and continue to face today, with the deck being stacked against them so absurdly, they've somehow managed to carry on with their lives, and survive between generations the best that they could. I think that's a testament to just how resilient the Black race is (or perhaps that speaks about the will that human beings have to survive among harsh, unfavorable conditions). A Black person could look at the stuff posted here and just say "fuck it, might as well forgo all the trouble and kill myself off if this is what I have to deal with". This country may not value Blacks, but Blacks clearly value themselves since many want to be educated, successful, raise families, etc. and I think that's the most critical thing to hold on to because without that, there will truly be no hope left.

I know many black people, some of them my closest friends, who were raised by good parents some of them even single parents, and went on to graduate from high school, then off to college, graduated, and are highly successful people making very good livings and have amazing marriages/families of their own.

Not a single one of them were given a hand-out of any kind. They earned their way just like anyone else in this country that strives to do good for themselves.

To the people, no matter the race, that don't get those opportunities, it's an easy cop-out excuse to blame it on racism or that someone prevented them from becoming successful.

I can understand a family not having enough money to send their kid to college, but there are so many opportunities to get the money for college.

I'm just sick and tired of people blaming everything on race. If people spent less time doing that and more time doing work, there would be less racism in the country.

 

[pokeystaples]

I know many black people, some of them my closest friends, who were raised by good parents some of them even single parents, and went on to graduate from high school, then off to college, graduated, and are highly successful people making very good livings and have amazing marriages/families of their own.

Not a single one of them were given a hand-out of any kind. They earned their way just like anyone else in this country that strives to do good for themselves.

To the people, no matter the race, that don't get those opportunities, it's an easy cop-out excuse to blame it on racism or that someone prevented them from becoming successful.

I can understand a family not having enough money to send their kid to college, but there are so many opportunities to get the money for college.

I'm just sick and tired of people blaming everything on race. If people spent less time doing that and more time doing work, there would be less racism in the country.

How would doing more work mean less racism?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Maybe we should just ban any discussion on race for a while. Some people seem very intent on getting rises out of others.

 

[Amir0x]

I know many black people, some of them my closest friends, who were raised by good parents some of them even single parents, and went on to graduate from high school, then off to college, graduated, and are highly successful people making very good livings and have amazing marriages/families of their own.

Not a single one of them were given a hand-out of any kind. They earned their way just like anyone else in this country that strives to do good for themselves.

To the people, no matter the race, that don't get those opportunities, it's an easy cop-out excuse to blame it on racism or that someone prevented them from becoming successful.

I can understand a family not having enough money to send their kid to college, but there are so many opportunities to get the money for college.

I'm just sick and tired of people blaming everything on race. If people spent less time doing that and more time doing work, there would be less racism in the country.

OK, this is some fucked shit. If you read this thread and you still think the people who "don't get those opportunities" are using this stuff as a cop-out, you're being straight up intellectually dishonest. And frankly, insulting.

I had started a post to you earlier and removed it because so many other posters dealt with you and I didn't want to derail, but this is some fucked shit.

YOU CANNOT ignore the shit we're talking about here. I even made a simple example in the OP that people like you can understand.

If you live 20 miles from New York City and your friend lives 200 miles from New York City, given equal traffic conditions and weather conditions, who will make it to New York City first?

Ok, that's easy. Now, let's say we go further.

Let's say we break your friends car down a bit, so it's barely running. And then we make sure that we strategically place police throughout the route, so that the person gets pulled over a few times. And then let's say we give your friend a map with wrong directions, so they intentionally get lost. And don't forget they're still 200 miles away.

How many of these people driving to NYC are going to give up trying to get to the city? A lot. Some will still make it. Others will have their car break down and get frustrated; someone else will get too angry after they get stopped by the police for the fifth time; someone else will give up when they end up getting lost. The end result after this crucible of obstacles is that your friends given these conditions are a whole lot less likely to make it to NYC.

A white person who is born into privilege literally 'earns' for free a billion different free passes in a society which is built around opening doors for them. They 'earn' what they get, but they 'earn' it within the structure of a society who has made it a crapload easier for them. It doesn't mean it will still be absent difficulty for them all, it doesn't mean everyone of them will be successful. It just means a whole heckuva lot more are going to make it through the filter.

 

[Abounder]

I know many black people, some of them my closest friends, who were raised by good parents some of them even single parents, and went on to graduate from high school, then off to college, graduated, and are highly successful people making very good livings and have amazing marriages/families of their own.

Not a single one of them were given a hand-out of any kind. They earned their way just like anyone else in this country that strives to do good for themselves.

To the people, no matter the race, that don't get those opportunities, it's an easy cop-out excuse to blame it on racism or that someone prevented them from becoming successful.

I can understand a family not having enough money to send their kid to college, but there are so many opportunities to get the money for college.

I'm just sick and tired of people blaming everything on race. If people spent less time doing that and more time doing work, there would be less racism in the country.

The problem is that other alternatives like military service is more competitive than ever, and many black youths are ineligible because of their records

 

[deli2000]

I know many black people, some of them my closest friends, who were raised by good parents some of them even single parents, and went on to graduate from high school, then off to college, graduated, and are highly successful people making very good livings and have amazing marriages/families of their own.

Not a single one of them were given a hand-out of any kind. They earned their way just like anyone else in this country that strives to do good for themselves.

To the people, no matter the race, that don't get those opportunities, it's an easy cop-out excuse to blame it on racism or that someone prevented them from becoming successful.

I can understand a family not having enough money to send their kid to college, but there are so many opportunities to get the money for college.

I'm just sick and tired of people blaming everything on race. If people spent less time doing that and more time doing work, there would be less racism in the country.

There wouldn't though. A system built centuries ago and reinforced till this very day to devalue and dehumanize African Americans won't just disappear on a whim, and I don't think asking for the basic decency of being treated equally is the same as asking for a handout.

This 'black people aren't working hard enough' argument is a total lie. I honestly don't know how you can look at this much overwhelming evidence to the contrary and still hold this view.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

OK, this is some fucked shit. If you read this thread and you still think the people who "don't get those opportunities" are using this stuff as a cop-out, you're being straight up intellectually dishonest. And frankly, insulting.

I had started a post to you earlier and removed it because so many other posters dealt with you and I didn't want to derail, but this is some fucked shit.

YOU CANNOT ignore the shit we're talking about here. I even made a simple example in the OP that people like you can understand.

I don't doubt in certain areas of our country that there is indeed racism. Hell, in Texas, we have a town called Vidor, it still to this day has billboards and signs that are straight out telling people that they do not like blacks. Not sure how they're legally able to have those signs posted in today's society, but yeah, it's sick.

Nowhere did I say ignore racism. I was clearly stating that people (NOT ALL, BUT DO NOT DENY THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO) who aren't successful easily blame it on racism.

Hell, I can go further and say that me not getting ahead in my line of work is because of women. I'm in marketing/advertising, a industry dominated by mostly women. I work in a department of 18 people...three of us are males, the rest are females.

On top of the racial injustice there's also gender injustice. I've seen younger women get jobs with zero experience while the older women with experience get passed up because they're not young and attractive. I've seen fat old white men and fat old mexican men hire blondes and blondes only because they wanna see some piece of ass walking in the office everyday.

I had a guy one time in the elevator say, "hey, do you notice that woman over at the recep desk across the way?" I said, sure. He said, man, sure is nice to have something nice to look at everyday.

I've had personal friends who, black, brown, gold, olive, you name it, that everytime something didn't go their way, they say it's because of race.

So from now on, how about I, the evil white dude start saying, everytime I don't get my way, it's because I'm white and they chose to give the job to a minority so they can be a company that's diverse...and meet their quota.

Also, at one of my previous companies, I had to take a team photo of our staff for a top places to work ad we put in a paper. Of the employees we had that day, one of them was black, one was asian, one was mexican. The rest were white. I sent out a invite to everyone to come be in the photo. I was on a deadline. The people who showed up...all white. So, I took the photo. My boss sees the photo and says, oh, we can't send that in, we're gonna look like we only employee whites here.

So then I have to embarrass people and go seek out those individuals who were non-white and ask them to please come be in the photo (a second time now that I have to seek them), their response to me is, why is it so important for them to be in the photo and I said, because we want to show our diversity. I wasn't gonna bullshit them.

So not only was I embarrassed, they too were put in an uncomfortable position because now we singled-out non-whites to be in a company photo.

All this racial shit is stupid and silly. There are stupid cities in this country. There are stupid communities in this country. There are a lot of morons in positions of power that didn't really earn their way there. Meanwhile, we also have terrorists everywhere on a religious war to wipe the earth of anyone that's not them.

Excuse me if I disagree the slightest with your thread. I'm not being disrespectful, I'm not derailing the thread, I'm simply stating an opinion, and it's obviously an opinion not shared by the majority here, so obviously it's going to annoy people...but ya know what, that's the beauty of our society here, we can disagree.



Merry Christmas.

 

[marrec]

I remember thinking like TTUVAPOR when I was younger and had no perspective.

It's easy to convince yourself that racism exists elsewhere and not "here". Which is obviously not true, racism is endemic to all American cities and institutions. There is no magical place where there is zero unconscious bias or casual or overt racism.

I had a black friend growing up in school (the only Black guy in my school of 300). He was the nicest and most courteous person you could ever interact with, until he started competing. Great grades, well tailored, close cropped hair, no reason at all that he shouldn't succeed. His family didn't live in town. I later found out it was because they were ran out of town by the city council. They had to sell their house and business and move a few miles outside of town.

But on the basketball/football court he would get mouthy. So the parents of all the other kids would yell out to him calling him a thug and a nigger. The thing is, we were all mouthy as shit on the court. It's how we learned to play basketball.

Anyway at a certain point in my sophomore year he moved away. I don't know what happened to him after that but I really hope he became one of TTUVAPORs model minorities. The point is that all this time I was living there in Eastern New Mexico I had no idea that the reason there was only one black kid at my school and they didn't live in town and he got called a thug and a nigger was because almost everyone who lived in that little shitty town was a racist. I was surrounded by white poverty and ZERO perspective on actual racism besides what I read in my history book.

I literally thought that MLK had ended racism.

So don't be too hard on TTUVAPOR. It's difficult sometimes to realize that the world you've been living in has been completely different than the world that exists in your head.

Spoiler

That stuff about women he's spouting up there though is pretty crazy :lol

 

[deli2000]

I don't doubt in certain areas of our country that there is indeed racism. Hell, in Texas, we have a town called Vidor, it still to this day has billboards and signs that are straight out telling people that they do not like blacks. Not sure how they're legally able to have those signs posted in today's society, but yeah, it's sick.

Nowhere did I say ignore racism. I was clearly stating that people (NOT ALL, BUT DO NOT DENY THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO) who aren't successful easily blame it on racism.

Hell, I can go further and say that me not getting ahead in my line of work is because of women. I'm in marketing/advertising, a industry dominated by mostly women. I work in a department of 18 people...three of us are males, the rest are females.

On top of the racial injustice there's also gender injustice. I've seen younger women get jobs with zero experience while the older women with experience get passed up because they're not young and attractive. I've seen fat old white men and fat old mexican men hire blondes and blondes only because they wanna see some piece of ass walking in the office everyday.

I had a guy one time in the elevator say, "hey, do you notice that woman over at the recep desk across the way?" I said, sure. He said, man, sure is nice to have something nice to look at everyday.

I've had personal friends who, black, brown, gold, olive, you name it, that everytime something didn't go their way, they say it's because of race.

So from now on, how about I, the evil white dude start saying, everytime I don't get my way, it's because I'm white and they chose to give the job to a minority so they can be a company that's diverse...and meet their quota.

Also, at one of my previous companies, I had to take a team photo of our staff for a top places to work ad we put in a paper. Of the employees we had that day, one of them was black, one was asian, one was mexican. The rest were white. I sent out a invite to everyone to come be in the photo. I was on a deadline. The people who showed up...all white. So, I took the photo. My boss sees the photo and says, oh, we can't send that in, we're gonna look like we only employee whites here.

So then I have to embarrass people and go seek out those individuals who were non-white and ask them to please come be in the photo (a second time now that I have to seek them), their response to me is, why is it so important for them to be in the photo and I said, because we want to show our diversity. I wasn't gonna bullshit them.

So not only was I embarrassed, they too were put in an uncomfortable position because now we singled-out non-whites to be in a company photo.

All this racial shit is stupid and silly. There are stupid cities in this country. There are stupid communities in this country. There are a lot of morons in positions of power that didn't really earn their way there. Meanwhile, we also have terrorists everywhere on a religious war to wipe the earth of anyone that's not them.

Excuse me if I disagree the slightest with your thread. I'm not being disrespectful, I'm not derailing the thread, I'm simply stating an opinion, and it's obviously an opinion not shared by the majority here, so obviously it's going to annoy people...but ya know what, that's the beauty of our society here, we can disagree.



Merry Christmas.

You are being disrespectful and you are derailing the thread though. Have you actually listened to even one of your many minority friends and colleagues about racism? Or did you shut off and start moaning about them crying wolf because all this talk is making you uncomfortable. Have you during your many posts in this thread even thought about what the average black experience is even like? Or would that make you uncomfortable as well. Did you even read the vast amounts of writing dedicated, in this thread, to pointing out Institutionalized Racism specifically for people like you? Or did you scroll down because it was making you feel a little uncomfortable.

You should be feeling uncomfortable about the system we live in now, you should be called out on trivializing this issue. Because do you know what else is uncomfortable? Feeling scared every time you walk near a police officer, because you might be arrested for the heinous crime of being black, that's uncomfortable. Failing to get a job because a white guy just walked in with lower qualifications than you, that's uncomfortable. Being judged every time you walk in a room despite being a professional in your field is uncomfortable. Knowing that no matter how had you work and how much good you do all these things might still happen to you is uncomfortable. But the absolute worst thing is, no matter how many times you are abused, treated like a suspect. No matter how many times you are marginalized. No matter how much you scream and shout and provide heaps of evidence to try and get this nonsense to stop. Nobody cares, and the people in the privileged majority will never actually stop, listen, and actually have the balls to stand up against it. And nothing will change. That's the most uncomfortable thing of all.

Sorry you were embarrassed one time though.

 

[Amir0x]

Sorry you were embarrassed one time.

daaamn lol

I'm going out to the store for Christmas Eve shopping, but when I get back I will try to dedicate some time to really taking apart TTUVAPOR's post. Because it's not merely a difference of opinion, it's really insulting what he's writing and frankly suggests he is wholesale ignoring all the data in this topic as it's convenient.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

I remember thinking like TTUVAPOR when I was younger and had no perspective.

It's easy to convince yourself that racism exists elsewhere and not "here". Which is obviously not true, racism is endemic to all American cities and institutions. There is no magical place where there is zero unconscious bias or casual or overt racism.

That is wrong. You cannot create a blanket statement that basically says, everything, everywhere is racist in some way shape or form. That's simply not true.

In some areas of this world, yes, there is blatent racism and all forms of discrimination. But to say that everything is racist is just wrong.

I get that we don't live in a utopia society nor would I ever want to live in one, but please don't judge me saying I don't have perspective.

Lets keep judgmental crap outta the discussion here. The moment you start judging, that's when the discussion has folded.

Other than the women thing I discussed, tall people have an advantage in the work place. Most upper level management and managers all together are tall. Tall gives off a perception of power. Also your fitness level plays a huge role too. Not every company is this way obviously, but it's out there.

 

[TTUVAPOR]

You are being disrespectful and you are derailing the thread though. Have you actually listened to even one of your many minority friends and colleagues about racism? Or did you shut off and start moaning about them crying wolf because all this talk is making you uncomfortable. Have you during your many posts in this thread even thought about what the average black experience is even like? Or would that make you uncomfortable as well. Did you even read the vast amounts of writing dedicated, in this thread, to pointing out Institutionalized Racism specifically for people like you? Or did you scroll down because it was making you feel a little uncomfortable.

You should be feeling uncomfortable about the system we live in now, you should be called out on trivializing this issue. Because do you know what else is uncomfortable? Feeling scared every time you walk near a police officer, because you might be arrested for the heinous crime of being black, that's uncomfortable. Failing to get a job because a white guy just walked in with lower qualifications than you, that's uncomfortable. Being judged every time you walk in a room despite being a professional in your field is uncomfortable. Knowing that no matter how had you work and how much good you do all these things might still happen to you is uncomfortable. But the absolute worst thing is, no matter how many times you are abused, treated like a suspect. No matter how many times you are marginalized. No matter how much you scream and shout and provide heaps of evidence to try and get this nonsense to stop. Nobody cares, and the people in the privileged majority will never actually stop, listen, and actually have the balls to stand up against it. And nothing will change. That's the most uncomfortable thing of all.

Sorry you were embarrassed one time though.

Generlizations...stop.

I grew up in a small town outside of Houston, Texas. My high school, my college life, all of it I rarely witnessed racism and we were and still are heavily diverse. Houston, Texas for example is HUGELY diverse.

I do not doubt that in ares of our country, towns/cities, there are instances where people of all races get judge just for the color of their skin...im not ignoring that.

 

[marrec]

The thing is, all those model minorities that TTUVAPOR seems to know very likely have to deal with casual and overt racism everyday. They very likely get payed less than their equally qualified white compatriots. They very likely have to go to their childs school more often to talk with the principle for marginal shit. All the while working harder and longer for less.

And they HAVE TO do it all in silence.

Because if they complain then you have people like TTUVAPOR to point out how good they have it.

Edit:

It's kind of infuriating because it's supporting a structure that perpetuates poverty and desperation while pointing to a few people who made it through and saying "See, racism doesn't exist here, Bill's an executive!"

 

[TTUVAPOR]

daaamn lol

I'm going out to the store for Christmas Eve shopping, but when I get back I will try to dedicate some time to really taking apart TTUVAPOR's post. Because it's not merely a difference of opinion, it's really insulting what he's writing and frankly suggests he is wholesale ignoring all the data in this topic as it's convenient.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

You don't like my opinion, and that's perfectly fine. You have the right not to like my opinion.

Nowhere did I EVER once say in any of my posts that I discredit your data findings. Fuck man, how many times do I need to agree and acknowledge that there is racism in this country. What I disagree with is that you blanket it to be EVERYWHERE at every given second.

You seem to not want to recognize that there are people out there that when they don't get their way, they fall back on racism. I did not say EVERYONE, I said that there are people that do it. People love to associate blame to something other than themselves.

Just like the video game violence debate...lets blame video games because it's so easy to do it.

Anyway, I'm done here. The discussion supposedly can't be held unless I agree with everything.

Cheers and Merry Christmas. Don't waste your keystrokes on a reply (at least not a lengthy one) because I'm not gonna engage the discussion any longer.

Those of you who have had racism and judgements in your life, I hope you're able to seek out happiness and surround yourself with people that don't do that.

 

[Bgamer90]

Generlizations...stop.

I grew up in a small town outside of Houston, Texas. My high school, my college life, all of it I rarely witnessed racism and we were and still are heavily diverse. Houston, Texas for example is HUGELY diverse.

Not sure what you are trying to say -- an area can't have many cases of racism (whether blatant or covered up) if you (a white male) don't see it first hand?

 

[deli2000]

I rarely witnessed racism.

Of course you wouldn't witness racism if you don't even understand what it is. I'm not making a generalization when you are blatantly ignoring every constructive post made in this thread because you feel that it's just people complaining and not working hard enough in the end.

Sorry if I'm getting heated about an issue that is to you clearly a minor one. But I don't have the fucking choice whether I witness racism or not. I've experienced it for most of my life, as well as the apathy and unwillingness to care that comes from the majority of people as well. I find it a bit rude how you consider yourself an expert on this and how you are so unwilling to let your guard down and show a little bit of empathy.

Those of you who have had racism and judgements in your life, I hope you're able to seek out happiness and surround yourself with people that don't do that.

Silly me! I'll just do that and institutionalized racism will magically disappear! We were just being too sad all this time! Thanks friend!

 

[FiggyCal]

That is wrong. You cannot create a blanket statement that basically says, everything, everywhere is racist in some way shape or form. That's simply not true.

In some areas of this world, yes, there is blatent racism and all forms of discrimination. But to say that everything is racist is just wrong.

I get that we don't live in a utopia society nor would I ever want to live in one, but please don't judge me saying I don't have perspective.

Lets keep judgmental crap outta the discussion here. The moment you start judging, that's when the discussion has folded.

Other than the women thing I discussed, tall people have an advantage in the work place. Most upper level management and managers all together are tall. Tall gives off a perception of power. Also your fitness level plays a huge role too. Not every company is this way obviously, but it's out there.

You can see the bias towards younger women and tall people, but given the statistics in this very thread you can't see the bias that black people have to deal with? I think you're rejecting those statistics because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

 

[marrec]

Of course you wouldn't witness racism if you don't even understand what it is. I'm not making a generalization when you are blatantly ignoring every constructive post made in this thread because you feel that it's just people complaining and not working hard enough in the end.

Sorry if I'm getting heated about an issue that is to you clearly a minor one. But I don't have the fucking choice whether I witness racism or not. I've experienced it for most of my life, as well as the apathy and unwillingness to care that comes from the majority of people as well. I find it a bit rude how you consider yourself an expert on this and how you are so unwilling to let your guard down and show a little bit of empathy.

Yep, that was the point of my post above. As a white dude growing up in white poverty, I didn't witness racism either. That's because I was white and not a victim of racism on a daily basis. What I saw as people being rude or strangely hostile towards the few black people I knew was actually racism, I just didn't recognize it as such at the time.

And the insidious racism that exists in hiring practices and police stops (etc) is impossible to "see" as a white guy. You have to learn about it and educate yourself.

 

[theignoramus]

Nowhere did I say ignore racism. I was clearly stating that people (NOT ALL, BUT DO NOT DENY THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO) who aren't successful easily blame it on racism.

Like, why does this even matter? Okay, some folks blame their problems on racism, what the hell does that have to do with the massive institutional problems outlined in the OP?
Are you really so ignorant as to try and claim that minorities who reflexively complain about racism are as problematic as rampant discrimination and prejudice in institutions the public at large relies on?
This kind of false equivalence is about stupid as it is infuriating. Let's not talk about the issues studied and documented by academia, let's put forward some fucking useless anecdotal shit about people who complain too much about racism.
GARBAGE.

 

[J10]

He needed to let us all know there are racism cry babies in his life and therefore the premise of the thread is invalid. The very definition of some fuck shit.

 

[lednerg]

I don't doubt in certain areas of our country that there is indeed racism. Hell, in Texas, we have a town called Vidor, it still to this day has billboards and signs that are straight out telling people that they do not like blacks. Not sure how they're legally able to have those signs posted in today's society, but yeah, it's sick.

Nowhere did I say ignore racism. I was clearly stating that people (NOT ALL, BUT DO NOT DENY THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO) who aren't successful easily blame it on racism.

[yada yada yada...]

You don't have to hate people of another race to be racist. You can simply fear them ("thugs") or believe that they're getting unfairly favorable treatment ("welfare state").

 

[tokkun]

I remember thinking like TTUVAPOR when I was younger and had no perspective.

It's easy to convince yourself that racism exists elsewhere and not "here". Which is obviously not true, racism is endemic to all American cities and institutions. There is no magical place where there is zero unconscious bias or casual or overt racism.

Forget about trying to argue that overt racism is universal. Whether that is true or not, it is an argument that is poison to any sort of productive discussion. You can already see that happening in this thread. People who do not practice overt racism already revile it and are already capable of identifying it. People who do practice are not going to be convinced to change by whatever you post. Accusations of overt racism simply serve to put people on the defensive and make them less receptive to your points (along with the ridiculously condescending tone of some of these posts). Putting a focus on overt racism also suggests an overly simple solution: elimination of overt racism. This is the origin of the idea of the post-race society and the thought that if we can just eliminate overt racism, everything will be fine.

Focus on unconscious bias instead. First of all, it is a less adversarial argument, and less likely to shut things down into defensiveness. We are all subject to unconscious bias, so bringing it up puts us on the same level rather than framing me as being superior to you. It is also an argument that is more compatible with statistical evidence - the original basis of this thread. Unconscious bias can be demonstrated through simple quantitative experiments (and has been many times), in a way that overt racism cannot. There are simple tests that anyone can take to demonstrate the power of unconscious bias (Here's one: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html). This results in less room for arguing around the edges and focuses the discussion more on solutions than on assigning motivations. I guarantee you that we would be seeing more positive change coming out of these recent racially-charged police killings if the argument were focused on unconscious bias rather than overt racism. Lastly, by focusing on unconscious bias, you naturally accept that the problem cannot be solved simply by weeding out a few bad apples, but rather through systemic change. I understand that framing the argument around unconscious bias may feel less satisfying to people who have been discriminated against, but if the goal is reform rather than simple catharsis, it is the way to go.

 

[Figboy79]

Just look what happened to that little girl in my post. In all likelihood she was a perfectly ordinary person in other respects - and downright monstrous in one.

Figboy79, I think it has gotten better, and I think in particular that how racism is expressed and how it functions has changed - and I think on balance even that is an improvement. It is harder to pin down, but the very fact that it is so much more obfuscatory in its nature now out of necessity is an improvement. And I agree entirely about what you said - it may be ancient history, but it's that history that has led us to this point. If you don't understand the history, you don't understand the present.

I'd also suggest reading Bonilla-Silva's Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America (which someone else also recommended earlier in this topic!). The introductory paragraphs, which I posted before in another thread:

Nowadays, except for members of white supremacist organizations, few whites in the United States claim to be "racist." Most whites assert they "don't see color, just people"; that although the ugly face of discrimination is still with us, it is no longer the central factor determining minorities' life chances; and, finally, that like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they aspire to live in a society where "people are judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin." More poignantly, most whites insist that minorities (especially blacks) are the ones responsible for whatever "race problem" we have in this country. They publicly denounce blacks for "playing the race card," for demanding the maintenance of unnecessary and divisive race-based programs such as affirmative action, and for crying "racism" whenever they are criticized by whites. Most whites believe that if blacks and other minorities would just stop thinking about the past, work hard, and complain less (particularly about racial discrimination), then Americans of all hues could "get along."

But regardless of whites' "sincere fictions," racial considerations shade almost everything in America. Blacks and dark-skinned racial minorities lag well behind whites in virtually every area of social life; they are about three times more likely to be poor than whites, earn about 40 percent less than whites, and have about an eighth of the net worth that whites have. They also receive an inferior education compared to whites, even when they attend integrated institutions. In terms of housing, black-owned units comparable to white-owned ones are valued at 35 percent less. Blacks and Latinos also have less access to the entire housing market because whites, through a variety of exclusionary practices by white realtors and homeowners, have been successful in effectively limiting their entrance into many neighborhoods. Blacks receive impolite treatment in stores, in restraints, and in a host of other commercial transactions. Researchers have also documented that blacks pay more for goods such as cars and houses than do whites. Finally, blacks and dark-skinned Latinos are the targets of racial profiling by the police, which, combined with the highly racialized criminal court system, guarantees their over-representation among those arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, and if charged for a capital crime, executed. Racial profiling on the highways has become such a prevalent phenomenon that a term has emerged to describe it: driving while black. In short, blacks and most minorities are "at the bottom of the well."

How is it possible to have this tremendous degree of racial inequality in a country where most whites claim that race is no longer relevant? More importantly, how do whites explain the apparent contradiction between their professed color blindness and the United States' color-coded inequality? In this book, I have attempted to answer both of these questions. I contend that whites have developed powerful explanations - which have ultimately become justifications - for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them for any responsibility for the status of people of color. These explanations emanate from a new racial ideology that I label colorblind racism. This ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late 1960s, explains contemorary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics. Whereas Jim Crow explained blacks' social standing as the result of their biological and moral inferiority, color-blind racism avoids such facile arguments. Instead, whites rationalize minorities' contemporary status as the product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks' imputed cultural limitations. For instance, whites can attribute Latinos' high poverty rate to a relaxed work ethic ("the Hispanics are mañana, mañana, mañana - tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow") or residential segregation as the result of natural tendencies among groups ("Does a dog and a cat mix? I can't see it. You can't drink milk and scotch. Certain mixes don't mix.").

Color-blind racism became the dominant racial ideology as the mechanisms and practices for keeping blacks and other racial minorities "at the bottom of the well" changed. I have argued elsewhere that contemporary racial inequality is reproduced through "new racism" practices that are subtle, institutional, and apparently nonracial. In contrast to the Jim Crow era, where racial inequality was enforced through overt means (e.g., signs saying "No Niggers Welcome Here" or shotgun diplomacy at the voting booth), today racial practices operate in a "now you see it, now you don't" fashion. For example, residential segregation, which is almost as high today as it was in the past, is no longer accomplished through overtly discriminatory practices. Instead, covert behaviors such as not showing all available units, steering minorities and whites into certain neighborhoods, quoting higher rents or prices to minority applicants, or not advertising units at all are the weapons of choice to maintain separate communities. In the economic field, "smiling face" discrimination ("We don't have jobs now, but please check later"), advertising job openings in mostly white networks and ethnic newspapers, and steering highly educated people of color into poorly remunerated jobs or jobs with limited opportunities for mobility are the new ways of keeping minorities in a secondary position. Politically, although the civil rights struggles have helped remove many of the obstacles for the electoral participation of people of color, "racial gerrymandering, multimember legislative districts, election runoffs, annexation of predominately white areas, at-large district elections, and anti-single-shot devices (disallowing concentrating votes in one or two candidates in cities using at-large elections) have become standard practices to disenfranchise" people of color. Whether in banks, restaurants, school admissions, or housing transactions, the maintenance of white privilege is done in a way that defies facile racial readings. Hence, the contours of color-blind racism fit America's new racism quite well.

Compared to Jim Crow racism, the ideology of color blindness seems like "racism lite." Instead of relying on name calling (niggers, spics, chinks), color-blind racism otherizes softly ("these people are human, too"); instead of proclaiming that God placed minorities in the world in a servile position, it suggests they are behind because they do not work hard enough; instead of viewing interracial marriage as wrong on a straight racial basis, it regards it as "problematic" because of concerns over children, location, or the extra burden it places in couples. Yet this new ideology has become a formidable political tool for the maintenance of the racial order. Much as Jim Crow racism served as the glue for defending a brutal and overt system of racial oppression in the pre-civil rights era, color-blind racism serves today as the ideological armor for a covert and institutionalized system in the post-civil rights era. And the beauty of this new ideology is that it aids in the maintenance of white privilege without fanfare, without naming those who it subjects and those who it rewards. It allows a president to state things such as, "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education," yet at the same time characterize the University of Michigan's affirmative action program as "flawed" and "discriminatory" against whites. Thus whites enunciate positions that safeguard their racial interests without sounding "racist." Shielded by color blindness, whites can express resentment toward minorities; criticize their morality, values, and work e thic; and even claim to be victims of "reverse racism." This is the thesis I will defend in this book to explain the curious enigma of "racism without racists."​

Also, in reference to ostensibly colorblind arguments used to advance anti-black / white supremacist political aims (which is what Shake Appeal was talking about earlier), here's Foner on Andrew Johnson, showing us just how early these excuses get trotted out:

To the utter surprise of Congress, the President vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau Bill. Moreover, rejecting a conciliatory draft written by Seward, which criticized the bill's specifics while acknowledging a federal responsibility for the freedmen, his message repudiated the Bureau entirely, deriding it as an "immense patronage" unwarranted by the Constitution and unaffordable given "the condition of our fiscal affairs." Congress, he pointed out, had never felt called upon to provide economic relief, establishing schools or purchase land "for our own people"; such aid, moreover, would injure the "character" and "prospects" of the freedmen by implying that they did not have to work for a living. These matters, Johnson went on, should not be decided while eleven states remained unrepresented, and at any rate the President - "chosen by the people of all the States" - had a broader view of the national interest than members of Congress, elected "from a single district."

This was, to say the least, a remarkable document. In appealing to fiscal conservatism, raising the specter of an immense federal bureaucracy trampling upon citizen's rights, and insisting self-help, not dependence upon outside assistance, offered the surest road to economic advancement, Johnson voiced themes that to this day have sustained opposition to federal intervention on behalf of blacks. At the same time, he misrepresented the aims of Congress - calling the Bureau "a permanent branch of the public administration," which it was not - and avoided any expression of sympathy for the freedmen's plight. As for Johnson's exalting himself above Congress, this, one Republican remarked, "is modest for a man . . . made President by an assassin."​

Thanks for this! Added it to my wish list.