Support NeoGAF

[Mumei]

I'm reminded by the newest argument of a passage in The New Jim Crow:

"... One recent study indicates that the elimination of race-based admissions policies would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools. Sociologist Stephen Steinberg describes the bleak reality this way: "Insofar as this black middle class is an artifact of affirmative action policy, it cannot be said to be the result of autonomous workings of market forces. In other words, the black middle class does not reflect the lowering of racist barriers in occupations so much as the opposite: racism is so entrenched that without government intervention there would be little 'progress' to boast about."

In view of all this, we must ask, to what extent has affirmative action helped us remain blind to, and in denial about, the existence of a racial underclass?"​

I'm also reminded of an editorial written by Michelle Alexander, the author of The New Jim Crow:

Recent data shows, though, that much of black progress is a myth. In many respects, African-Americans are doing no better than they were when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated and uprisings swept inner cities across America. Nearly a quarter of African-Americans live below the poverty line today, approximately the same percentage as in 1968. The black child poverty rate is actually higher now than it was then. Unemployment rates in black communities rival those in Third World countries. And that's with affirmative action!

When we pull back the curtain and take a look at what our "colorblind" society creates without affirmative action, we see a familiar social, political, and economic structure--the structure of racial caste. The entrance into this new caste system can be found at the prison gate.​

And I'm reminded of Ta-Nehisi Coates' post on Patrick Sharkey's "Neighborhoods and The Mobility Gap" study is useful:

Among children born from 1955 through 1970, only 4 percent of whites were raised in neighborhoods with at least 20 percent poverty, compared to 62 percent of blacks. Three out of four white children were raised in neighborhoods with less than 10 percent poverty, compared to just 9 percent of blacks. Even more astonishingly, essentially no white children were raised in neighborhoods with at least 30 percent poverty, but three in ten blacks were.

And more shockingly still, almost half (49 percent) of black children with family income in the top three quintiles lived in neighborhoods with at least 20 percent poverty, compared to only one percent of white children in those quintiles. These figures reveal that black children born from the mid 1950s to 1970 were surrounded by poverty to a degree that was virtually nonexistent for whites.

This degree of racial inequality is not a remnant of the past. Two out of three black children born from 1985 through 2000 have been raised in neighborhoods with at least 20 percent poverty, compared to just 6 percent of whites. Only one out of ten blacks in the current generation has been raised in a neighborhood with less than 10 percent poverty, compared to six out of ten whites. Even today, thirty percent of black children experience a level of neighborhood poverty -- a rate of 30 percent or more -- unknown among white children.​

Previous research has used a measure of neighborhood disadvantage that incorporates not only poverty rates, but unemployment rates, rates of welfare receipt and families headed by a single mother, levels of racial segregation, and the age distribution in the neighborhood to capture the multiple dimensions of disadvantage that may characterize a neighborhood.

Figure 2 shows that using this more comprehensive measure broken down into categories representing low, medium, and high disadvantage, 84 percent of black children born from 1955 through 1970 were raised in "high" disadvantage neighborhoods, compared to just 5 percent of whites. Only 2 percent of blacks were raised in "low" disadvantage neighborhoods, compared to 45 percent of whites. The figures for contemporary children are similar.

By this broader measure, blacks and whites inhabit such different neighborhoods that it is not possible to compare the economic outcomes of black and white children who grow up in similarly disadvantaged neighborhoods. However, there is enough overlap in the childhood neighborhood poverty rates of blacks and whites to consider the effect of concentrated poverty on economic mobility.​

The main conclusion from these results is that neighborhood poverty appears to be an important part of the reason why blacks experience more downward relative economic mobility than whites, a finding that is consistent with the idea that the social environments surrounding African Americans may make it difficult for families to preserve their advantaged position in the income distribution and to transmit these advantages to their children.

When white families advance in the income distribution they are able to translate this economic advantage into spatial advantage in ways that African Americans are not, by buying into communities that provide quality schools and healthy environments for children. These results suggest that one consequence of this pattern is that middle-class status is particularly precarious for blacks, and downward mobility is more common as a result.​

Just to illustrate the gap, Sharkey's research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. In other words, black upper-middle class families often do not live in what would be considered upper-middle class neighborhoods.

That said, there are still advantages inherent to being in the middle class apart from the financial. In Annette Lareau's Unequal Childhoods: Race, Class, and Family Life, she goes into considerable depth explaining how family dynamics are influenced by class differences by doing an ethnographic study with a large cross-section of poor, working-class, and middle-class families, to see how the dynamics work out in practice. For instance, she demonstrates how middle class parents differed from working class and poor parents in their fundamental conception of what their responsibilities as parents included. Middle class parents worked to engage their kids in "concerted cultivation." These parents see themselves as developing their children's talents, by engaging them in a way array of organized activities, from which those same kids develop a sense of entitlement, and learn to question adults and address them as relative equals. Children in middle class homes also experienced more talking, which led to "greater verbal agility, larger vocabularies, more comfort with authority figures, and more familiarity with abstract concepts." They also "developed skill differences in interacting with authority figures in institutions and at home."

And I know that we're used to treating "entitlement" as a bad thing, but it is advantageous today:

This kind of training developed in Alexander and other middle-class children a sense of entitlement. They felt they had the right to weigh in with an opinion, to make special requests, to pass judgment on others, and to offer advice to adults. They expected to receive attention and to be taken very seriously. It is important to note that these advantages and entitlements are historically specific. In colonial America, for example, children's actions were highly restricted; thus, the strategies associated with concerted cultivation would have conferred no social class advantage. They are highly effective strategies in the United States today precisely because our society places a premium on assertive, individualized actions executed by persons who command skills in reasoning and negotiation.​

The working class and poor parents, by contrast, attempt to facilitate the "accomplishment of natural growth." This does have its advantages - the children of these families rarely complain of boredom, the field researchers never saw the sort of common expressions of hatred that they saw in middle class homes, the kids tended to be more self-directed in terms of finding their own entertainment, they were more comfortable with hanging out with groups with wide disparities in age range, and they were better at handling their disputes without the help of an adult. But these kids also developed disadvantages; while the children of the middle-class parents were learning entitlement the cultural logic of these parents was out of step with that of the primary institution - school - that their children interacted with. These children developed a sense of "distance, distrust, and constraint in their institutional experiences."

One of the best examples of this difference in institutional experiences is a doctor's visit. In the case of the middle-class child, his parent coaches him on the idea of asking questions, encourages him to be thinking about questions before he gets there, and this child is encouraged in his attempt to ask questions by the doctor taking him seriously. By contrast, the child of the working-class parent did not evince the same sense of entitlement to ask questions of the doctor, which meant that in this instance, there was a disparity in the quality and amount of information divulged. This is one way that middle-class parents are able to transmit advantages for their children - simply by knowing how to be assertive and how to interact with institutional authority figures. For instance, when one middle-class mother's daughter misses the cut-off for the gifted-and-talented program by two points (128 out of 130 required) on the IQ score, rather than simply accepting the judgment of the institution, she used advice from school educators and tips from friends in other districts, learned the guidelines for appealing a decision, and had her daughters tested privately (at $200 a child) and was able to get her children admitted into the program. The children of middle-class parents learn to approach relationships with institutional authority figures as negotiable, and ones in which they can assert their desires and their needs and expect to be taken seriously. By contrast, over and over again the parents of working-class or poor parents learn a sense of restraint and of almost learned helplessness in their interactions with authority figures.

Even if race weren't an issue in and of itself, the problem of class would present an enormous barrier to achieving racial equality because of the deep-seated disparities.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Mumei, I read every one of your posts here (even passed a few on to my siblings and friends).

The most depressing but very necessary (and meaningful) read I have ever had on GAF in my 10 years here.

Thank you for posting, my friend.

Thank you.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

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?

This is pretty much the crux of talking about issues of race with the white majority (not all obviously, some of the most informed people I know about racial issues are white and fight against this inequality). They have all the conditions available that let's them ignore the reality and justify their ignorance by playing off issues of race as complaining. It's literally in the threads opening and still it is ignored. If someone can see this thread and still say what he said, imagine the difficulty we face in getting this information to the everyday person who can't even be bothered to click on a thread like this?

 

[Piecake]

Speaking of the New Jim Crow, I thought these were some of the most compelling and convincing examples and excerpts that show institutional racism exists (and that it is largely fueled by that structure or unconscious bias/prejudice - at least we hope...)

Policing Practices

In 2002, a team of researchers at the University of Washington decided to take the defenses of the drug war seriously, by subjecting the arguments to empirical testing in a major study of drug-law enforcement in a racially mixed city—Seattle.81 The study found that, contrary to the prevailing “common sense,” the high arrest rates of African Americans in drug-law enforcement could not be explained by rates of offending; nor could they be explained by other standard excuses, such as the ease and efficiency of policing open-air drug markets, citizen complaints, crime rates, or drug-related violence. The study also debunked the assumption that white drug dealers deal indoors, making their criminal activity more difficult to detect.

The authors found that it was untrue stereotypes about crack markets, crack dealers, and crack babies—not facts—that were driving discretionary decision making by the Seattle Police Department. The facts were as follows: Seattle residents were far more likely to report suspected narcotics activities in residences—not outdoors—but police devoted their resources to open-air drug markets and to the one precinct that was least likely to be identified as the site of suspected drug activity in citizen complaints. In fact, although hundreds of outdoor drug transactions were recorded in predominantly white areas of Seattle, police concentrated their drug enforcement efforts in one downtown drug market where the frequency of drug transactions was much lower. In racially mixed open-air drug markets, black dealers were far more likely to be arrested than whites, even though white dealers were present and visible. And the department focused overwhelmingly on crack—the one drug in Seattle more likely to be sold by African Americans—despite the fact that local hospital records indicated that overdose deaths involving heroin were more numerous than all overdose deaths for crack and powder cocaine combined. Local police acknowledged that no significant level of violence was associated with crack in Seattle and that other drugs were causing more hospitalizations, but steadfastly maintained that their deployment decisions were nondiscriminatory.

The study’s authors concluded, based on their review and analysis of the empirical evidence, that the Seattle Police Department’s decisions to focus so heavily on crack, to the near exclusion of other drugs, and to concentrate its efforts on outdoor drug markets in downtown areas rather than drug markets located indoors or in predominantly white communities, reflect “a racialized conception of the drug problem.”82 As the authors put it: “[The Seattle Police Department’s] focus on black and Latino individuals and on the drug most strongly associated with ‘blackness’ suggest that law enforcement policies and practices are predicated on the assumption that the drug problem is, in fact, a black and Latino one, and that crack, the drug most strongly associated with urban blacks, is ‘the worst.’”83 This racialized cultural script about who and what constitutes the drug problem renders illegal drug activity by whites invisible. “White people,” the study’s authors observed, “are simply not perceived as drug offenders by Seattle police officers.”

Pedestrian stops, too, have been the subject of study and controversy. The New York Police Department released statistics in February 2007 showing that during the prior year its officers stopped an astounding 508,540 people—an average of 1,393 per day—who were walking down the street, perhaps on their way to the subway, grocery store, or bus stop. Often the stops included searches for illegal drugs or guns—searches that frequently required people to lie face down on the pavement or stand spread-eagled against a wall while police officers aggressively groped all over their bodies while bystanders watched or walked by. The vast majority of those stopped and searched were racial minorities, and more than half were African American.99

The NYPD began collecting data on pedestrian stops following the shooting of Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant who died in a hail of police bullets on the front steps of his own home in February 1999. Diallo was followed to his apartment building by four white police officers—members of the elite Street Crime Unit—who viewed him as suspicious and wanted to interrogate him. They ordered him to stop, but, according to the officers, Diallo did not respond immediately. He walked a bit further to his apartment building, opened the door, and retrieved his wallet—probably to produce identification. The officers said they thought the wallet was a gun, and fired forty-one times. Amadou Diallo died at the age of twenty-two. He was unarmed and had no criminal record. Diallo’s murder sparked huge protests, resulting in a series of studies commissioned by the attorney general of New York. The first study found that African Americans were stopped six times more frequently than whites, and that stops of African Americans were less likely to result in arrests than stops of whites—presumably because blacks were less likely to be found with drugs or other contraband.100 Although the NYPD attempted to justify the stops on the grounds that they were designed to get guns off the street, stops by the Street Crime Unit—the group of officers who supposedly are specially trained to identify gun-toting thugs—yielded a weapon in only 2.5 percent of all stops.101

Rather than reducing reliance on stop-and-frisk tactics following the Diallo shooting and the release of this disturbing data, the NYPD dramatically increased its number of pedestrian stops and continued to stop and frisk African Americans at grossly disproportionate rates. The NYPD stopped five times more people in 2005 than in 2002—the overwhelming majority of whom were African American or Latino.102

In Los Angeles, mass stops of young African American men and boys resulted in the creation of a database containing the names, addresses, and other biographical information of the overwhelming majority of young black men in the entire city. The LAPD justified its database as a tool for tracking gang or “gang-related” activity. However, the criterion for inclusion in the database is notoriously vague and discriminatory. Having a relative or friend in a gang and wearing baggy jeans is enough to put youth on what the ACLU calls a Black List. In Denver, displaying any two of a list of attributes— including slang, “clothing of a particular color,” pagers, hairstyles, or jewelry—earns youth a spot in the Denver Police’s gang database. In 1992, citizen activism led to an investigation, which revealed that eight out of every ten people of color in the entire city were on the list of suspected criminals.

 

[Piecake]

After you are in the system is what truly fucks you over for life

Approximately 80 percent of criminal defendants are indigent and thus unable to hire a lawyer.62 Yet our nation’s public defender system is woefully inadequate. The most visible sign of the failed system is the astonishingly large caseloads public defenders routinely carry, making it impossible for them to provide meaningful representation to their clients. Sometimes defenders have well over one hundred clients at a time; many of these clients are facing decades behind bars or life imprisonment. Too often the quality of court-appointed counsel is poor because the miserable working conditions and low pay discourage good attorneys from participating in the system. And some states deny representation to impoverished defendants on the theory that somehow they should be able to pay for a lawyer, even though they are scarecely able to pay for food or rent. In Virginia, for example, fees paid to courtappointed attorneys for representing someone charged with a felony that carries a sentence of less than twenty years are capped at $428. And in Wisconsin, more than 11,000 poor people go to court without representation every year because anyone who earns more than $3,000 per year is considered able to afford a lawyer.63 In Lake Charles, Louisiana, the public defender office has only two investigators for the 2,500 new felony cases and 4,000 new misdemeanor cases assigned to the office each year.64 The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta sued the city of Gulfport, Mississippi, alleging that the city operated a “modern day debtor’s prison” by jailing poor people who are unable to pay their fines and denying them the right to lawyers.

In 2004, the American Bar Association released a report on the status of indigent defense,
concluding that, “All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring. Sometimes the proceedings reflect little or no recognition that the accused is mentally ill or does not adequately understand English. The fundamental right to a lawyer that Americans assume applies to everyone accused of criminal conduct effectively does not exist in practice for countless people across the United States.”65

Even when people are charged with extremely serious crimes, such as murder, they may find themselves languishing in jail for years without meeting with an attorney, much less getting a trial. One extreme example is the experience of James Thomas, an impoverished day laborer in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, who was charged with murder in 1996, and waited eight and a half years for his case to go to trial. It never did. His mother finally succeeded in getting his case dismissed, after scraping together $500 to hire an attorney, who demonstrated to the court that, in the time Thomas spent waiting for his case to go to trial, his alibi witness had died of kidney disease. Another Louisiana man, Johnny Lee Ball, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after meeting with a public defender for just eleven minutes before trial. If indicted murderers have a hard time getting meaningful representation, what are the odds that smalltime drug dealers find themselves represented by a zealous advocate? As David Carroll, the research director for the National Legal Aid & Defender Association explained to USA Today, “There’s a real disconnect in this country between what people perceive is the state of indigent defense and what it is. I attribute that to shows like Law & Order, where the defendant says, ‘I want a lawyer,’ and all of a sudden Legal Aid appears in the cell. That’s what people think.”66

Almost no one ever goes to trial. Nearly all criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining—a guilty plea by the defendant in exchange for some form of leniency by the prosecutor. Though it is not widely known, the prosecutor is the most powerful law enforcement official in the criminal justice system. One might think that judges are the most powerful, or even the police, but in reality the prosecutor holds the cards. It is the prosecutor, far more than any other criminal justice official, who holds the keys to the jailhouse door.

After the police arrest someone, the prosecutor is in charge. Few rules constrain the exercise of his or her discretion. The prosecutor is free to dismiss a case for any reason or no reason at all. The prosecutor is also free to file more charges against a defendant than can realistically be proven in court, so long as probable cause arguably exists—a practice known as overcharging.

The practice of encouraging defendants to plead guilty to crimes, rather than affording them the benefit of a full trial, has always carried its risks and downsides. Never before in our history, though, have such an extraordinary number of people felt compelled to plead guilty, even if they are innocent, simply because the punishment for the minor, nonviolent offense with which they have been charged is so unbelievably severe. When prosecutors offer “only” three years in prison when the penalties defendants could receive if they took their case to trial would be five, ten, or twenty years—or life imprisonment—only extremely courageous (or foolish) defendents turn the offer down.

Once you are convicted of a felony, you are fucked

Because harsh sentencing is the primary cause of the prison explosion, one might reasonably assume that substantially reducing the length of prison sentences would effectively dismantle this new system of control. That view, however, is mistaken. This system depends on the prison label, not prison time.

Once a person is labeled a felon, he or she is ushered into a parallel universe in which discrimination, stigma, and exclusion are perfectly legal, and privileges of citizenship such as voting and jury service are off-limits. It does not matter whether you have actually spent time in prison; your second-class citizenship begins the moment you are branded a felon. Most people branded felons, in fact, are not sentenced to prison. As of 2008, there were approximately 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, and a staggering 5.1 million people under “community correctional supervision”—i.e., on probation or parole.87 Merely reducing prison terms does not have a major impact on the majority of people in the system. It is the badge of inferiority—the felony record—that relegates people for their entire lives, to second-class status. As described in chapter 4, for drug felons, there is little hope of escape. Barred from public housing by law, discriminated against by private landlords, ineligible for food stamps, forced to “check the box” indicating a felony conviction on employment applications for nearly every job, and denied licenses for a wide range of professions, people whose only crime is drug addiction or possession of a small amount of drugs for recreational use find themselves locked out of the mainstream society and economy—permanently.

No wonder, then, that most people labeled felons find their way back into prison. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics study, about 30 percent of released prisoners in its sample were rearrested within six months of release. 88 Within three years, nearly 68 percent were rearrested at least once for a new offense.89 Only a small minority are rearrested for violent crimes; the vast majority are rearrested for property offenses, drug offenses, and offenses against the public order

Imagine you are Emma Faye Stewart, a thirty-year-old, single African American mother of two who was arrested as part of a drug sweep in Hearne, Texas.1 All but one of the people arrested were African American. You are innocent. After a week in jail, you have no one to care for your two small children and are eager to get home. Your court-appointed attorney urges you to plead guilty to a drug distribution charge, saying the prosecutor has offered probation. You refuse, steadfastly proclaiming your innocence. Finally, after almost a month in jail, you decide to plead guilty so you can return home to your children. Unwilling to risk a trial and years of imprisonment, you are sentenced to ten years probation and ordered to pay $1,000 in fines, as well as court and probation costs. You are also now branded a drug felon. You are no longer eligible for food stamps; you may be discriminated against in employment; you cannot vote for at least twelve years; and you are about to be evicted from public housing. Once homeless, your children will be taken from you and put in foster care.

A judge eventually dismisses all cases against the defendants who did not plead guilty. At trial, the judge finds that the entire sweep was based on the testimony of a single informant who lied to the prosecution. You, however, are still a drug felon, homeless, and desperate to regain custody of your children.

Now place yourself in the shoes of Clifford Runoalds, another African American victim of the Hearne drug bust.2 You returned home to Bryan, Texas, to attend the funeral of your eighteen-month-old daughter. Before the funeral services begin, the police show up and handcuff you. You beg the officers to let you take one last look at your daughter before she is buried. The police refuse. You are told by prosecutors that you are needed to testify against one of the defendants in a recent drug bust. You deny witnessing any drug transaction; you don’t know what they are talking about. Because of your refusal to cooperate, you are indicted on felony charges. After a month of being held in jail, the charges against you are dropped. You are technically free, but as a result of your arrest and period of incarceration, you lose your job, your apartment, your furniture, and your car. Not to mention the chance to say good-bye to your baby girl.

Once labeled a felon, the badge of inferiority remains with you for the rest of your life, relegating you to a permanent second-class status. Consider, for example, the harsh reality facing a first-time offender who pleads guilty to felony possession of marijuana. Even if the defendant manages to avoid prison time by accepting a “generous” plea deal, he may discover that the punishment that awaits him outside the courthouse doors is far more severe and debilitating than what he might have encountered in prison. A task force of the American Bar Association described the bleak reality facing a petty drug offender this way:

[The] offender may be sentenced to a term of probation, community service, and court costs. Unbeknownst to this offender, and perhaps any other actor in the sentencing process, as a result of his conviction he may be ineligible for many federally-funded health and welfare benefits, food stamps, public housing, and federal educational assistance. His driver’s license may be automatically suspended, and he may no longer qualify for certain employment and professional licenses. If he is convicted of another crime he may be subject to imprisonment as a repeat offender. He will not be permitted to enlist in the military, or possess a firearm, or obtain a federal security clearance. If a citizen, he may lose the right to vote; if not, he becomes immediately deportable

New System of Debt Peonage

Throughout the United States, newly released prisoners are required to make payments to a host of agencies, including probation departments, courts, and child-support enforcement offices. In some jurisdictions, ex-offenders are billed for drug testing and even for the drug treatment they are supposed to receive as a condition of parole. These fees, costs, and fines are generally quite new—created by law within the past twenty years—and are associated with a wide range of offenses. Every state has its own rules and regulations governing their imposition.

Examples of preconviction service fees imposed throughout the United States today include jail book-in fees levied at the time of arrest, jail per diems assessed to cover the cost of pretrial detention, public defender application fees charged when someone applies for court-appointed counsel, and the bail investigation fee imposed when the court determines the likelihood of the accused appearing at trial. Postconviction fees include pre-sentence report fees, public defender recoupment fees, and fees levied on convicted persons placed in a residential or work-release program. Upon release, even more fees may attach, including parole or probation service fees. Such fees are typically charged on a monthly basis during the period of supervision. 36 In Ohio, for example, a court can order probationers to pay a $50 monthly supervision fee as a condition of probation. Failure to pay may warrant additional community control sanctions or a modification in the offender’s sentence.37

Two-thirds of people detained in jails report annual incomes under $12,000 prior to arrest.
Predictably, most ex-offenders find themselves unable to pay the many fees, costs, and fines associated with their imprisonment, as well as their child-support debts (which continue to accumulate while a person is incarcerated). As a result, many ex-offenders have their paychecks garnished. Federal law provides that a child-support enforcement officer can garnish up to 65 percent of an individual’s wages for child support. On top of that, probation officers in most states can require that an individual dedicate 35 percent of his or her income toward the payment of fines, fees, surcharges, and restitution charged by numerous agencies.38 Accordingly, a former inmate living at or below the poverty level can be charged by four or five departments at once and can be required to surrender 100 percent of his or her earnings. As a New York Times editorial soberly observed, “People caught in this impossible predicament are less likely to seek regular employment, making them even more susceptible to criminal relapse.”39

Whether or not ex-offenders make the rational choice to participate in the illegal economy (rather than have up to 100 percent of their wages garnisheed), they may still go back to prison for failure to meet the financial portion of their probation supervision requirements. One study of probation revocations found that 12 percent were due at least in part to a failure of probationers to pay their debts. Some ex-offenders are thrown back in prison simply because they have been unable—with no place to live, and no decent job—to pay back thousands of dollars of prison-related fees, fines, and child support.

Some offenders, like Ora Lee Hurley, find themselves trapped by fees and fines in prison and find it nearly impossible to get out. Hurley was a prisoner held at the Gateway Diversion Center in Atlanta in 2006. She was imprisoned because she owed a $705 fine. As part of the diversion program, Hurley was permitted to work during the day and return to the center at night. “Five days a week she work[ed] fulltime at a restaurant earning $6.50 an hour and, after taxes, net about $700 a month.”40 Room and board at the diversion center was about $600, and her monthly transportation cost $52. Miscellaneous other expenses, including clothes, shoes, and personal items such as toothpaste, quickly exhausted what was left. Hurley’s attorney decried the trap she was in: “This is a situation where if this woman was able to write a check for the amount of the fine, she would be out of there. And because she can’t, she’s still in custody. It’s as simple as that.” 41 Although she worked a full-time job while in custody, most of her income went to repay the diversion program, not the underlying fine that put her in custody in the first place.

Driver's License and transportation issues

An ex-offender whose driver’s license has been suspended or who does not have access to a car, often faces nearly insurmountable barriers to finding employment. Driving to the suburbs to pick up and drop off applications, attend interviews, and pursue employment leads may be perfectly feasible if you have a driver’s license and access to a vehicle, but attempting to do so by bus is another matter entirely. An unemployed black male from Chicago’s South Side explains: “Most of the time ... the places be too far and you need transportation and I don’t have none right now. If I had some I’d probably be able to get one [a job]. If I had a car and went way into the suburbs, ’cause there ain’t none in the city.”27 Those who actually land jobs in the suburbs find it difficult to keep them without reliable, affordable transportation.

Murray McNair, a twenty-two-year-old African American, returned to Newark, New Jersey, after being locked up for drug offenses. He shares a small apartment with his pregnant girlfriend, his sister, and her two children. Through a federally funded job training program operated by Goodwill Industries, McNair found a $9-an-hour job at a warehouse twenty miles—two buses and a taxi ride— away. “I know it’s going to be tough,” he told a New York Times reporter. “But I can’t be thinking about myself anymore.”28

The odds of McNair, or any ex-offender in a similar situation, succeeding under these
circumstances are small. If you make $9 per hour, but spend $20 dollars or more getting to and from work every day, how do you manage to pay rent, buy food, and help to support yourself and a growing family? An unemployed thirty-six-year-old black man quit his suburban job because of the transportation problem. “I was spending more money getting to work than I earned working.”

It is hard not to conclude from these excerpts that our justice system was not designed to imprison minorities and then trap them in some sort of permanent underclass where it is extremely difficult to escape.

 

[Vice]

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.

So while endless amounts of data suggests that racism has affected nearly every aspect of life for African Americans you still feel that many are making it up. And, even if your argument is correct that there are a few that blame racism for personal failures that still leaves the rest of them who work hard, and smart, everyday who still get screwed over by a system that encourages them to fail.

 

[CesspoolofHatred]

The Black Middle-Class and More on the Wealth Gap

Policing Practices

The Prison System

Housing Discrimination and Segregation in St. Louis County

Iunno if more is gonna fit in the OP.

That chunk of Mumei's first post will probably need to be trimmed, but in return that could probably be replaced with a sentence or two snippet from each post. I'd be willing to do that as well. Let me know your opinion on this, Amirox.

EDIT: Added Mumei's post below.

 

[Mumei]

The Making of Ferguson: Public Policies at the Root of Its Troubles explains how some of those processes I was talking about in my first (long) post took place in one city, though these practices occurred all around the country:

Media accounts of how Ferguson became Ferguson have typically explained that when African Americans moved to this suburb (and others like it), “white flight” followed, abandoning the town to African Americans who were trying to escape poor schools in the city. The conventional explanation adds that African Americans moved to a few places like Ferguson, not the suburbs generally, because prejudiced real estate agents steered black homebuyers away from other white suburbs. And in any event, those other suburbs were able to preserve their almost entirely white, upper-middle-class environments by enacting zoning rules that required only expensive single family homes, the thinking goes.

No doubt, private prejudice and suburbanites’ desire for homogenous affluent environments contributed to segregation in St. Louis and other metropolitan areas. But these explanations are too partial, and too conveniently excuse public policy from responsibility. A more powerful cause of metropolitan segregation in St. Louis and nationwide has been the explicit intents of federal, state, and local governments to create racially segregated metropolises.​

And how, you ask yourself, was this done?

In the case of St. Louis, these intents were expressed in mutually reinforcing federal, state, and local policies that included:

• Racially explicit zoning decisions that designated specific ghetto boundaries within the city of St. Louis, turning black neighborhoods into slums;
• Segregated public housing projects that separated blacks and whites who had previously lived in more integrated urban areas;
• Restrictive covenants, excluding African Americans from white areas, that began as private agreements but then were adopted as explicit public policy;
• Government subsidies for white suburban developments that excluded blacks, depriving African Americans of the 20th century home-equity driven wealth gains reaped by whites;
• Denial of adequate municipal services in ghettos, leading to slum conditions in black neighborhoods that reinforced whites’ conviction that “blacks” and “slums” were synonymous;
• Boundary, annexation, spot zoning, and municipal incorporation policies designed to remove African Americans from residence near white neighborhoods, or to prevent them from establishing residence near white neighborhoods;
• Urban renewal and redevelopment programs to shift ghetto locations, in the guise of cleaning up those slums;
• Government regulators’ tacit (and sometimes open) support for real estate and financial sector policies and practices that explicitly promoted residential segregation;
• A government-sponsored dual labor market that made suburban housing less affordable for African Americans by preventing them from accumulating wealth needed to participate in homeownership.

That governmental action, not mere private prejudice, was responsible for segregating greater St. Louis was once conventional informed opinion. In 1974, a three-judge panel of the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that “segregated housing in the St. Louis metropolitan area was … in large measure the result of deliberate racial discrimination in the housing market by the real estate industry and by agencies of the federal, state, and local governments.” Similar observations accurately describe every other large metropolitan area; in St. Louis, the Department of Justice stipulated to this truth but took no action in response. In 1980, a federal court order included an instruction for the state, county, and city governments to devise plans to integrate schools by integrating housing. Public officials ignored this aspect of the order, devising only a voluntary busing plan to integrate schools, but no programs to combat housing segregation.

Although policies to impose segregation are no longer explicit, their effects endure in neighborhoods segregated by race in the North, South, East, and West. When we blame private prejudice and snobbishness for contemporary segregation, we not only whitewash our own history, but avoid considering whether new policies might instead promote an integrated community.​

Or as the final section of the piece is titled: "In conclusion: Understanding segregation’s causes suggests remedies"

You can see the racial segregation we still have today looking at this interactive map.

 

[CesspoolofHatred]

Goddamn, Mumei, you are a linking MONSTER.

This is one of the most informative topics I've ever come across. Definitely using this for reference whenever I see debates about racism.

 

[thepotatoman]

Or as the final section of the piece is titled: "In conclusion: Understanding segregation’s causes suggests remedies"

So about that:

Many practical programs and regulatory strategies can address problems of Ferguson and similar communities nationwide. One example is to prohibit landlords from refusing to accept tenants whose rent is subsidized – a few states and municipalities currently do prohibit such refusal, but most do not. Another example is to require even outer-ring suburbs to repeal zoning ordinances that prohibit construction of housing that lower- or moderate-income residents – white or black – can afford. Going further, we could require every community to permit development of housing to accommodate a “fair share” of its region’s low-income and minority populations – New Jersey, for example, has taken a very modest step towards this requirement.

But we won’t consider such remedies if we remain blind to how Ferguson became Ferguson. It is impractical to think that the public and policymakers will support remedies to problems whose causes they don’t understand. We flatter ourselves that the responsibility is only borne by rogue police officers, white flight, and suburbanites’ desire for economic homogeneity. Prosecuting the officer who shot Michael Brown, or investigating and integrating Ferguson’s police department, can’t address the deeper obstacles to racial progress.

I can't help but notice how often the solutions are as "color-blind" as the problems are in the sense that there's nothing inherently racial about them, even though the reasoning and results have everything to do with race.

You'd think it's something the white moderate would jump on, and yet clearly those policies still aren't easy to implement. It seems there's a lot more agreement on the solutions than there is on the problem, but it also seems like we can't implement the solution until we agree on the problem, and that's what's so nuts to me. It's making the next step forward seem so easy and impossible at the same time.

 

[RDreamer]

Used some of these statistics today during one of those family holiday "discussions" on race. I didn't convert my dad or really make him see the light, but it went much better than if I hadn't. If only I could get him past the "well then what's the solution?" question that he kept interrupting me with so many times (My answer was "acknowledge institutional racism exists"). Also getting him to actually believe these stats aren't just liberal lies is kind of rough. I could tell he didn't want to call me a liar, and didn't even think they were lies, it just flew in the face of his worldview so much he could only mutter "I don't know if I believe that stat..." a few times.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Cool thread. I think as much as ending things like Stop and Frisk et al might help, those policies are symptoms rather than causes.

The main cause is that our social value system has been formed over the decades and centuries by European white men. Now, there's nothing wrong with European white men, but when such a small group creates a value system, it makes every other group or culture seem "less than" or intrusive.

For this reason, I really do feel that affirmative action is one of the best ways to go about fixing institutional racism and mysoginy. It's not about "bad cops" or "bad bosses" or whatever. I'm not sure that focusing on individuals, as the protesters after the Eric Garner investigation wanted, wouldn't be harmful to the cause.

We need people of color and women in higher and more influential roles, where they can have an effect on our values as a society.

 

[Piecake]

Used some of these statistics today during one of those family holiday "discussions" on race. I didn't convert my dad or really make him see the light, but it went much better than if I hadn't. If only I could get him past the "well then what's the solution?" question that he kept interrupting me with so many times (My answer was "acknowledge institutional racism exists"). Also getting him to actually believe these stats aren't just liberal lies is kind of rough. I could tell he didn't want to call me a liar, and didn't even think they were lies, it just flew in the face of his worldview so much he could only mutter "I don't know if I believe that stat..." a few times.

I read an interesting article on Vox a week or so ago (can't find it now) that said if you want to convince someone of something that challenges their worldview, you either have to assuage that their worldview has merit and then try to gently convince then or get someone who is of the same political persuasion to convince them.

I think that makes sense, becaues if you don't do any of that, people will feel that their beliefs are being attacked and start ignoring, disbelieving or misinterpretation evidence.

Everyone does this, so it isnt limited to close-minded people or people of a certain political bent. I am sure I do it as well.

 

[theignoramus]

Used some of these statistics today during one of those family holiday "discussions" on race. I didn't convert my dad or really make him see the light, but it went much better than if I hadn't. If only I could get him past the "well then what's the solution?" question that he kept interrupting me with so many times (My answer was "acknowledge institutional racism exists"). Also getting him to actually believe these stats aren't just liberal lies is kind of rough. I could tell he didn't want to call me a liar, and didn't even think they were lies, it just flew in the face of his worldview so much he could only mutter "I don't know if I believe that stat..." a few times.

It's interesting that your father finds the stats so incredulous as to be unbelievable. That means in the back of his mind, he knows there could be something rotten afoot. Now its all about the clash between the info you gave him and the worldview he is clinging to. (presumably one that assumes everyone in America has a free and fair shot at success)

 

[Piecake]

Cool thread. I think as much as ending things like Stop and Frisk et al might help, those policies are symptoms rather than causes.

The main cause is that our social value system has been formed over the decades and centuries by European white men. Now, there's nothing wrong with European white men, but when such a small group creates a value system, it makes every other group or culture seem "less than" or intrusive.

For this reason, I really do feel that affirmative action is one of the best ways to go about fixing institutional racism and mysoginy. It's not about "bad cops" or "bad bosses" or whatever. I'm not sure that focusing on individuals, as the protesters after the Eric Garner investigation wanted, wouldn't be harmful to the cause.

We need people of color and women in higher and more influential roles, where they can have an effect on our values as a society.

I somewhat disagree. While White European culture certainly has its part, I feel that the main cause of all of this mess is slavery. I think that is the root of racism, white supremacy, and all of our measures to keep black people subordinate.

As for affirmative action, I like this article a lot

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...e_for_liberals_to_admit_it_isn_t_working.html

I agree with him. I think affirmative action is a band-aid that doesnt fix the structural problems of our system.

Actually, The New Jim Crow had a really intereseting take on black people in positions of power and influence. She took the claim that it actually hampered change because people could point to people like Oprah and Obama and claim that the system is fine. All you have to do is work hard and you will succeed, just like at Obama, etc. Not to mention that Obama ramped up the Drug War, likely because he felt he had to take a hard stand to make him appear that he wasnt appeasing black voters, or some shit.

 

[RDreamer]

I read an interesting article on Vox a week or so ago (can't find it now) that said if you want to convince someone of something that challenges their worldview, you either have to assuage that their worldview has merit and then try to gently convince then or get someone who is of the same political persuasion to convince them.

I think that makes sense, becaues if you don't do any of that, people will feel that their beliefs are being attacked and start ignoring, disbelieving or misinterpretation evidence.

Everyone does this, so it isnt limited to close-minded people or people of a certain political bent. I am sure I do it as well.

It's also hard to challenge someone and have no real solution to it. They just go back to thinking "Well, my worldview works. We have solutions right now..."

And the problem with institutional racism is that there isn't one big solution to everything, and there certainly aren't even smaller solutions that will wipe things out. The biggest thing is really just acknowledging it exists, and that's a hard concept for certain people. That acknowledging something has power.

And yes, I know my dad and you do have to acknowledge some of his silliness. In most arguments on these things you have to acknowledge something. Which is hard to do if you're stubborn. It's hard for me to argue with my father if I'm in a particular mood, just because it's hard to concede things that really shouldn't be. It's also easier sometimes to calmly kind of introduce things piecemeal and then bring it together at the end. Get 'em nodding at some things along the way and then kind of bring it home once they're leaning your way a bit.

A lot of these things are rather lofty concepts. I have such a hard time explaining to people that when I say something is racist or that there is institutional racism, that doesn't mean there's someone specifically there calling every black person the N word and not letting them get ahead. People don't deal well with subtlety. They don't understand that something on a micro level might not look terribly racist, but on a macro level leads to some very racist results.

It's interesting that your father finds the stats so incredulous as to be unbelievable. That means in the back of his mind, he knows there could be something rotten afoot. Now its all about the clash between the info you gave him and the worldview he is clinging to. (presumably one that assumes everyone in America has a free and fair shot at success)

Yeah, it is interesting. He did say he didn't believe the stats, but then basically agreed with everything that leads to them afterwards. When it was his turn to speak, him and my mom basically seemed to dismiss black people not being able to find jobs at the rates whites can with "well, that's because they talk funny" and "business owners don't want to have to deal with all of that..." It wasn't in those exact words, but it basically boils down to that. And he dismissed cops stopping more black people than whites with... well "If I was a cop I'd probably be more suspicious of black people, too. There's a lot of black on black crime... etc." And cops perceive black people as more of a threat and add to their age, because... well... "They are bigger and more athletic." He also said that if I were to go into the inner city I would definitely be killed! Which is funny because I've been in the inner city, and I'm still alive.

I dunno, thinking back on it, it seems way worse and way more racist than it actually was in the conversation, lol. It's funny how people can justify some of these things.

My dad's an odd case, too, because he lived through the riots in Milwaukee when he was really little. He watched a lot of violence through the windows while visiting his aunt in the inner city. He's a 50 year old "badass" biker, but he's fucking scared stiff of being in the city.

 

[Cyriades]

The problem is when white man does something bad, we say "shame on him", but when one black man does something bad, we say "shame on THEM".

 

[Piecake]

It's also hard to challenge someone and have no real solution to it. They just go back to thinking "Well, my worldview works. We have solutions right now..."

And the problem with institutional racism is that there isn't one big solution to everything, and there certainly aren't even smaller solutions that will wipe things out. The biggest thing is really just acknowledging it exists, and that's a hard concept for certain people. That acknowledging something has power.

And yes, I know my dad and you do have to acknowledge some of his silliness. In most arguments on these things you have to acknowledge something. Which is hard to do if you're stubborn. It's hard for me to argue with my father if I'm in a particular mood, just because it's hard to concede things that really shouldn't be. It's also easier sometimes to calmly kind of introduce things piecemeal and then bring it together at the end. Get 'em nodding at some things along the way and then kind of bring it home once they're leaning your way a bit.

A lot of these things are rather lofty concepts. I have such a hard time explaining to people that when I say something is racist or that there is institutional racism, that doesn't mean there's someone specifically there calling every black person the N word and not letting them get ahead. People don't deal well with subtlety. They don't understand that something on a micro level might not look terribly racist, but on a macro level leads to some very racist results.

I think an important first step we could take is reforming our judicial system. I think this is probably the most doable because it is the least influenced by actual people and their unconscious biases.

MIchelle Alexander mentions that what screws over felons the most is not the amount of time they spend in jail, but the restrictions and discriminations they face after they are released. We should eliminate that. Get rid of the law barring felons from receiving food stamps, live in public housing, or educational assistance, etc. Get rid of all of those ridiculous court and legal fees that put an incredible burden on felons. Reform the probation system so that a person can't be sent back to jail for 10 years for violating some technicality. Allow felons the vote.

I think this will help reduce recidivism and give felons a chance of turning their lives around instead of dooming them to a permanent underclass of debt peonage and imprisonment.

I'd love to see a law making it illegal for employers to discriminate against felons (with some obvious exceptions), but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

How can you convince others? Well, I would use those macro statistics and studies that I posted in this thread about Seattle and New York, but then also give specific examples of real, innocent people gettting fucked over for life by the system and a felony conviction. The best way is probably to humanize it and make it feel real to the person, because like you said, it is a very abstract and subtle concept.

 

[RDreamer]

I think an important first step we could take is reforming our judicial system. I think this is probably the most doable because it is the least influenced by actual people and their unconscious biases.

MIchelle Alexander mentions that what screws over felons the most is not the amount of time they spend in jail, but the restrictions and discriminations they face after they are released. We should eliminate that. Get rid of the law barring felons from receiving food stamps, live in public housing, or educational assistance, etc. Get rid of all of those ridiculous court and legal fees that put an incredible burden on felons. Reform the probation system so that a person can't be sent back to jail for 10 years for violating some technicality. Allow felons the vote.

I think this will help reduce recidivism and give felons a chance of turning their lives around instead of dooming them to a permanent underclass of debt peonage and imprisonment.

I'd love to see a law making it illegal for employers to discriminate against felons (with some obvious exceptions), but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Then you have to go the fun route with some of these people (like my dad) of even convincing them that public housing, food stamps, and educational assistance is needed for anyone, much less felons. They won't want their tax money going toward that at all!

 

[Piecake]

Then you have to go the fun route with some of these people (like my dad) of even convincing them that public housing, food stamps, and educational assistance is needed for anyone, much less felons. They won't want their tax money going toward that at all!

Hah!

Well, you can always play the fairness card. Why is it fair to offer it to non-felons, but not to felons? Why should we punish felons and push them into an underclass, debt peonage, and likely re-offending after they served their time?

Then bring up our recidivism rate and compare it to other nations. Then ask them why are you more comfortable spending a lot more money jailing these people and not spending money on financial assistance so that they can get back on their feet and turn their life around?

I admit, that might be hard since some people are so dogmatic that they are incapable of seeing a practical solution. I remember one review on amazon of Foner's reconstruction book that called him a communist for advocating land confiscation and redistribution. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? Are you so wed to your ideology that you can't see that land redistribution might have meant that we could have avoided Jim Crow and had less violence and terror?

 

[RDreamer]

Hah!

Well, you can always play the fairness card. Why is it fair to offer it to non-felons, but not to felons? Why should we punish felons and push them into an underclass, debt peonage, and likely re-offending after they served their time?

Then bring up our recidivism rate and compare it to other nations. Then ask them why are you more comfortable spending a lot more money jailing these people and not spending money on financial assistance so that they can get back on their feet and turn their life around?

I admit, that might be hard since some people are so dogmatic that they are incapable of seeing a practical solution. I remember one review on amazon of Foner's reconstruction book that called him a communist for advocating land confiscation and redistribution. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? Are you so wed to your ideology that you can't see that land redistribution might have meant that we could have avoided Jim Crow and had less violence and terror?

Yeah, I've generally had more success going very solution oriented. Basically asking him "would you rather have someone that is a productive member of society and can hold a job, or do you want someone that's possibly in prison sucking up more of your tax dollars, or just going to end up back there again?" It still goes against his ideology of helping only those that really really really really really 200% deserve it and absolutely no one else at all ever if they've done anything remotely wrong, but he generally seems to agree with that.

Getting people to see that yes sometimes things go against your ideology, but you're going to get a much better, much more acceptable solution that way can work.

It's still rough. As I said, my dad is a character. He's generally a good person. He's just pretty brainwashed by Fox, and also seems to hang his entire persona on being the most obnoxious conservative he possibly can be. He takes pride in it. But sometimes I can get him to see the light for a few seconds. Like, I have him pretty much agreeing with me that former students need some sort of bailout. He doesn't like giving people things, and doesn't like bailouts, but he does see that there is a problem with the loan bubble, and does see that the solution is better than the consequences of no solution. So there's hope sometimes.

With race it's hard because he has such little interaction with anyone of any other race or culture at all. Black people don't live within like 20 miles of where he lives and where I grow up. His little interaction with them happened when he was little and saw the riots.

 

[Mumei]

I think an important first step we could take is reforming our judicial system. I think this is probably the most doable because it is the least influenced by actual people and their unconscious biases.

MIchelle Alexander mentions that what screws over felons the most is not the amount of time they spend in jail, but the restrictions and discriminations they face after they are released. We should eliminate that. Get rid of the law barring felons from receiving food stamps, live in public housing, or educational assistance, etc. Get rid of all of those ridiculous court and legal fees that put an incredible burden on felons. Reform the probation system so that a person can't be sent back to jail for 10 years for violating some technicality. Allow felons the vote.

I think this will help reduce recidivism and give felons a chance of turning their lives around instead of dooming them to a permanent underclass of debt peonage and imprisonment.

I'd love to see a law making it illegal for employers to discriminate against felons (with some obvious exceptions), but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

How can you convince others? Well, I would use those macro statistics and studies that I posted in this thread about Seattle and New York, but then also give specific examples of real, innocent people gettting fucked over for life by the system and a felony conviction. The best way is probably to humanize it and make it feel real to the person, because like you said, it is a very abstract and subtle concept.

Right. I saw an interview (I think with Moyers?) where she was talking about some successes that Ban the Box ("Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" box on employment applications) campaigns had had. It's a cause worth supporting.

And RDreamer, I'm sympathetic to that issue. I have several family members that are that variety of ignorant, and it's particularly difficult to have the conversations with them in person. I know my stuff pretty well, but it's really difficult catching all the misconceptions as they happen. I often find myself thinking over what they had said later, and only then - a day or two later - do I remember a study or a passage in a book or an article that answers their objection in a substantive way. And it's just more difficult to build a case for an argument when you have to deal with really baseline ignorance like the idea that poverty does not matter. It's a view so utterly divorced from reality, let alone basic decency, that it becomes something of a Gordian Knot.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Wow.

It's almost as if this entire country was literally built brick by brick upon racism.

Holy mother of fuck.

 

[RDreamer]

And RDreamer, I'm sympathetic to that issue. I have several family members that are that variety of ignorant, and it's particularly difficult to have the conversations with them in person. I know my stuff pretty well, but it's really difficult catching all the misconceptions as they happen. I often find myself thinking over what they had said later, and only then - a day or two later - do I remember a study or a passage in a book or an article that answers their objection in a substantive way. And it's just more difficult to build a case for an argument when you have to deal with really baseline ignorance like the idea that poverty does not matter. It's a view so utterly divorced from reality, let alone basic decency, that it becomes something of a Gordian Knot.

In a way it kind of reminds me of the quote "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." There's really a lot to chip away at in the worldview of a conservative. If you go into an argument expecting to get them to agreeing with things like institutional racism or feminism or something, you're going to fail. There's a lot of foundation needed to hit those points. I just try and poke holes here and there and get him to soften up... and especially get him to realize that the people he's talking about are actual people whose lives are actually affected by these things.

 

[Piecake]

Right. I saw an interview (I think with Moyers?) where she was talking about some successes that Ban the Box ("Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" box on employment applications) campaigns had had. It's a cause worth supporting.

And RDreamer, I'm sympathetic to that issue. I have several family members that are that variety of ignorant, and it's particularly difficult to have the conversations with them in person. I know my stuff pretty well, but it's really difficult catching all the misconceptions as they happen. I often find myself thinking over what they had said later, and only then - a day or two later - do I remember a study or a passage in a book or an article that answers their objection in a substantive way. And it's just more difficult to build a case for an argument when you have to deal with really baseline ignorance like the idea that poverty does not matter. It's a view so utterly divorced from reality, let alone basic decency, that it becomes something of a Gordian Knot.

Yea, I really wish I was an extemporaneous thinker/speaker. Reading Chernow's biography on Alexander Hamilton made me super jealous.

And the Ban the box thing was a pretty big thing in Minnesota thanks to Target. While it doesnt go far enough, I think it is a good start.

Wow.

It's almost as if this entire country was literally built brick by brick upon racism.

Holy mother of fuck.

Well, it essentially was since slavery basically birthed racism.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Wow.

It's almost as if this entire country was literally built brick by brick upon racism.

Holy mother of fuck.

It ... was ...

 

[Valhelm]

Wow.

It's almost as if this entire country was literally built brick by brick upon racism.

Holy mother of fuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol#The_House_and_Senate_Wings

 

[Mumei]

From Punishing Race: A Continuing American Dilemma. It covers some of the same ground as The New Jim Crow, but enough different information that it is also worth reading:

This can be illustrated even more strikingly, as in this graphic posted on The Atlantic's website by comparing it to other countries and the United States generally.

And this all has to be read in the context of the decline in violent crime generally.

 

[Kill3r7]

We need people of color and women in higher and more influential roles, where they can have an effect on our values as a society.

I am sure that will happen over the next couple of decades. Although, I fear nothing will change in the grand scheme of things because once an individual is in power, his or her societal values will align more closely with the top 1% rather than the masses. Race or sex have little bearing once you have made it and are part of the "club".

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I am sure that will happen over the next couple of decades. Although, I fear nothing will change in the grand scheme of things because once an individual is in power, his or her societal values will align more closely with the top 1% rather than the masses. Race or sex have little bearing once you have made it and are part of the "club".

Church.

 

[Amir0x]

That's so weird, before I couldn't fit any more in now it let me put in Mumei's new stats. I genuinely want to thank you again Mumei. I thought I made a pretty good thread, but between you, Cesspoolofhatred and a few other key players, it has really become an embarrassment of riches. I've learned a bunch of new facts too, which is precisely what I was hoping would happen outside of interesting discourse on the subject itself.

But above all Mumei you've really gone above and beyond the call of duty. You're definitely one of the best neoGAF posters for a reason.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Wow.

It's almost as if this entire country was literally built brick by brick upon racism.

Holy mother of fuck.

It was and it is, but we can rebuild it as a fairer, freer, and less savage place, brick by brick.

 

[Amir0x]

It was and it is, but we can rebuild it as a fairer, freer, and less savage place, brick by brick.

It's just a shame because I feel this new form of institutional racism that is hardwired into this countries DNA is even more difficult to disentangle from this government's weave, because so many people refuse to acknowledge it even exists.

So we've made progress, but we have come to a stumbling block that is one of the most infuriating ones yet from a "how do you actually fix it?" perspective

 

[fawaz]

Why is everything a war with you guys.

 

[DizzyCrow]

Jesus Christ this is disgusting, I admire every single black person in US because despite all of that shit you still manage to survive and some be successful in your lives. This thread made curious and I'll start searching stats of my country too(Brazil). From my experiences the racism here is a lot more subtle, but is present nonetheless, I was followed inside supermarkets and seen some women clutch their purses as I passed near them(mainly on richer neighborhoods), I actually get surprised when I see other black people on most places I frequent. Here racism is an unbailable crime but I don't recall ever seeing someone going to jail for it, in most cases it is ruled as defamation and insult. Congrats to Amir0x Mumei and all the other contributors.

Why is everything a war with you guys.

Did you actually read the entire thread? Or at least the OP?

 

[Figboy79]

This thread is an amazing well of knowledge and information. I thought I really knew about institutionalized racism, I mean, I experience it daily, but my knowledge was incredibly limited. I'm off work for the holidays, so I'm going to spend it reading all of these fascinating articles linked here, and trying to pick up some of the books for my shelf as well.

Thank you to everyone that's conteibuted, and those that have compiled the data for easier access!

 

[Gattsu25]

Why is everything a war with you guys.

This thread has been incredibly civil.




Seriously, this has been one of the most informative threads I've seen on any forum. Thanks to all who have participated!

 

[nel e nel]

http://youtu.be/t_0Uo3mduyo

 

[Mumei]

Jesus Christ this is disgusting, I admire every single black person in US because despite all of that shit you still manage to survive and some be successful in your lives. This thread made curious and I'll start searching stats of my country too(Brazil). From my experiences the racism here is a lot more subtle, but is present nonetheless, I was followed inside supermarkets and seen some women clutch their purses as I passed near them(mainly on richer neighborhoods), I actually get surprised when I see other black people on most places I frequent. Here racism is an unbailable crime but I don't recall ever seeing someone going to jail for it, in most cases it is ruled as defamation and insult. Congrats to Amir0x Mumei and all the other contributors.

I am completely unread about Brazil; I think this is the only passage (from Racism Without Racists) that talks about the racial hierarchy in Latin America (which isn't even South America...) that I can recall off-hand:

As a triracial system (or Latin- or Caribbean-like racial order), race conflict will be buffered by the intermediate group, much like class conflict is when the class structure includes a large middle class. Furthermore, color gradations, which have always been important matters of within-group differentiation, will become more salient factors of stratification. Lastly, Americans, like people in complex racial stratification orders, will begin making nationalist appeals ("We are all Americans"), decry their racial past, and claim they are "beyond race."

This new order, I argue, will be apparently more pluralistic and exhibit more racial fluidity than the order it is replacing. However, this new system will serve as a formidable fortress for white supremacy. Its "we are beyond race" lyrics and color-blind music will drown the voices of those fighting for racial equality ("Why continue talking about race and racism when we are all Americans?") and may even eclipse the space for talking about race altogether. Hence, in this emerging Latin America-like America, racial inequality will remain -- and may even increase -- yet there will be restricted space to fight it.​

The thing that strikes me rereading this is how we did have some of that in the antebellum period.

Anyway, if you find anything that looks good, I would appreciate a PM!

This thread is an amazing well of knowledge and information. I thought I really knew about institutionalized racism, I mean, I experience it daily, but my knowledge was incredibly limited.

I don't experience it daily, but I felt more or less the same way. I'd taken a course on African American Politics in college. I'd read at least the reading materials on the Civil Rights Movement and the selections about black political thought. I'd read Lies My Teacher Told Me, and had been shocked at some of what I didn't know. So, I thought I knew.

But in truth I only had the slightest inkling.

From a Ta-Nehisi Coates post - "Why Do So Few Blacks Study the Civil War?" in 2011, a post that I saw but didn't take the time to read at the time because, well, I hadn't done any reading about the Civil War:

In my study of African American history, the Civil War was always something of a sideshow. Just off center stage, it could be heard dimly behind the stories of Booker T. Washington, Ida B. Wells, and Martin Luther King Jr., a shadow on the fringe. But three years ago, I picked up James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom and found not a shadow, but the Big Bang that brought the ideas of the modern West to fruition. Our lofty notions of democracy, egalitarianism, and individual freedom were articulated by the Founders, but they were consecrated by the thousands of slaves fleeing to Union lines, some of them later returning to the land of their birth as nurses and soldiers. The first generation of the South’s postbellum black political leadership was largely supplied by this class.

Transfixed by the war’s central role in making democracy real, I have now morphed into a Civil War buff, that peculiar specimen who pores over the books chronicling the battles, then walks the parks where the battles were fought by soldiers, then haunts the small towns from which the soldiers hailed, many never to return.​

In my experience with public schooling, and this is a point that Ta-Nehisi makes in his piece, the slaves are portrayed as almost inert; as being the beneficiaries of the war but who are portrayed as not having any real agency. Sure, I knew that there were black union soldiers, but I wasn't told that there were nearly 200,000. I even remembered a quote by Lincoln in another post Ta-Nehisi made (seriously, you could get all your reading recommendations from him, I think):

Our greatest president, assessing the contribution of black soldiers in 1864, understood this:

We can not spare the hundred and forty or fifty thousand now serving us as soldiers, seamen, and laborers. This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated as horse-power and steam-power are measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it.​

The United States of America did not save black people; black people saved the United States of America. With that task complete, our "ally" proceeded to repay its debt to its black citizens by pretending they did not exist. In 1875, Mississippi's provisional governor, Adelbert Ames, watched as the majority-black state's nascent democracy "progressed" from terrorism to anarchy and then apartheid. Taking in regular reports of blacks being murdered, whipped, and intimidated by the Ku Klux Klan, Ames wrote the administration of President Ulysses Grant begging for aid. The Grant Administration declined:

The whole public are tired of these autumnal outbreaks in the South, and the great majority are ready now to condemn any interference on the part of the government.​

A horrified and exasperated Ames told his wife that blacks in Mississippi

... are to be returned to a condition of serfdom—an era of second slavery .... The nation should have acted but it was “tired of the annual autumnal outbreaks in the South” .... The political death of the negro will forever release the nation from the weariness from such “political outbreaks.” You may think I exaggerate. Time will show you how accurate my statements are.​

Ames was totally accurate. For the next century, the United States legitimized the overthrow of legal governments, the reduction of black people to forced laborers, and the complete alienation—at gunpoint—of black people in the South from the sphere of politics.​

But even this didn't mention that the hand of the Union had been forced by the actions of the masses of slaves escaping to Union lines. It didn't mention that even before the Emancipation Proclamation, slaves had become so disobedient in some areas of the South that already it was being suggested that slavery wouldn't survive. For me, one of the most salutary effects that reading about any aspect of black history has had is that it challenges that tendency I've had to see black people primarily as victims rather than as fully agentic. It wasn't even something I was consciously aware of, until I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and that tug of cognitive dissonance made me aware of it.

Spoiler

Merry Christmas, everyone.

 

[undrtakr900]

EXCELLENT thread Amir0x! I knew a lot of these statistics, but it's nice to have them all compiled into one thread. Subscribed.

I saw one of those insufferable clips of Fox the other day where they were talking about "why aren't these men there for their children" and I was just screaming to myself "maybe because they all got thrown in prison dumbasses"

Watching Fox News makes my head hurt at the stupidity of the hosts. They don't care about the truth/statistics unless it pushes their agenda.

 

[Jumplion]

I want to preface all of this by saying this whole thread is a wealth of information and incredibly valuable. I need to find some time to sit down and really digest all of it, but suffice to say it's awesome that all this information is being gathered, it really is.

Though this might have been asked before, I do have a question about the place of non-minorities/non-black people in trying to understand some of these issues.

Often times it feels that, as a white man, my reactions towards the issues faced by black people is covered in a veneer of pity or condescension. I think the term I've seen used is the "white-savior complex", where someone goes "man, I didn't know how bad it was! It truly sucks for Black America" which, while on the surface is well meaning, comes across as somewhat condescending. It's one thing to acknowledge the situation, and its another to go "man, it truly sucks, how do you guys survive? It's crazy!". You get what I'm jammin' at?

This all may be just a made up situation in my head, but I do recall reading an article that for the life of me I can't find about a photo that went viral of a white woman going up to two black teenagers and she used the opportunity to go all "don't judge a book by its cover" and "see? Don't make assumptions about people!" which the article pointed out was extremely condescending and how the actions leading up to that were still kind of racist.

Regardless of all that, I really need to find time to read through those articles. You're doing great work, so keep it up.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I want to preface all of this by saying this whole thread is a wealth of information and incredibly valuable. I need to find some time to sit down and really digest all of it, but suffice to say it's awesome that all this information is being gathered, it really is.

I do have a question, though this might have been asked before, but I do have a question about the place of non-minorities/non-black people in trying to understand some of these issues.

Often times it feels that, as a white man, my reactions towards the issues faced by black people is covered in a veneer of pity or condescension. I think the term I've seen used is the "white-savior complex", where someone goes "man, I didn't know how bad it was! It truly sucks for Black America" which, while on the surface is well meaning, comes across as somewhat condescending. It's one thing to acknowledge the situation, and its another to go "man, it truly sucks, how do you guys survive? It's crazy!". You get what I'm jammin' at?

This all may be just a made up situation in my head, but I do recall reading an article that for the life of me I can't find about a photo that went viral of a white woman going up to two black teenagers and she used the opportunity to go all "don't judge a book by its cover" and "see? Don't make assumptions about people!" which the article pointed out was extremely condescending and how the actions leading up to that were still kind of racist.

Regardless of all that, I really need to find time to read through those articles. You're doing great work, so keep it up.

http://bellejar.ca/2014/12/15/leigh-anne-tuohy-racism-and-the-white-saviour-complex/

This?

 

[Jumplion]

http://bellejar.ca/2014/12/15/leigh-anne-tuohy-racism-and-the-white-saviour-complex/

This?

That's exactly it, yeah. My googling powers are failing me. It got me thinking how I might have unwittingly done something similar and to what extent I'm "allowed" to feel bad about a situation that doesn't nearly affect me as much as others.

 

[open_mouth_]

So what can be done? I have some suggestions...

Increase awareness:

Threads like these help. Books help. News reports and articles help. But that's not enough. We need more. A five to seven minutes youtube video that is professionally done, easy to understand, impactful and memorable needs to be made and spread on social media like wildfire. We need the most powerful statistics, imagery and stories and we need some celebrity support either to push the video via their social media followers or through appearing in the video.

Neogaf community can do this. We have the skills and means collectively to get this done. I'm talking 50+ million views... An online movement. Then it can be expanded into a one hour plus documentary with a proper budget using the same formula and marketed as an extension. This rolls into...

Social pressure:

Once people are angry enough about a problem collectively they can force change. So the vids get people informed and calls them to action in little ways that everyone can handle... Like sharing the message or emailing someone in power or supporting news agencies and businesses that are fully on board publicly with the message. Then it starts to become taboo to be on the wrong side of the problem. Then people start noticing the little instutionalized forms of racism more and more. Slowly there's change.

Minority will:

Somehow this increased attention on the problem along with more people working towards reforms needs to instill a relentless desire in all people, but especially the minorities out there to really come together as a community to pull each other up through the fog of inequality once and for all, God willing. It seems insurmountable on its face. It starts with momentum and so long as that momentum isn't broken it can spread like wildfire in the span of a few generations. Those in power won't change things. The masses must force change collectively. Some key word or slogan must become the unifying message that reminds parents and children of what they must always strive for to force this change. It will take a lot of hard work individually and collectively to get to where we need to be but it is a worthwhile endeavor because real equality is truly an undeniable human right (not this faux equality we currently have). A major problem is the the wills of most are broken by relentless attack as described in this thread. That will has to be built back up to resist and overcome somehow someway. Education and community building should be the focus. Knowledge is power and the open hand vs fist argument. Lone sheep is easy prey but the herd can protect each other. Knowledge plus community = movement.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Often times it feels that, as a white man, my reactions towards the issues faced by black people is covered in a veneer of pity or condescension. I think the term I've seen used is the "white-savior complex", where someone goes "man, I didn't know how bad it was! It truly sucks for Black America" which, while on the surface is well meaning, comes across as somewhat condescending. It's one thing to acknowledge the situation, and its another to go "man, it truly sucks, how do you guys survive? It's crazy!". You get what I'm jammin' at?

Yes. Coming from a position of relative power, relative freedom to ignore what life is like for others, can lead to a lot of handwringing about what is paternalistic or condescending or tokenistic. But it's still better to have those conversations and to be wrong frequently, or to get embarrassed often, than not have them or stay silent. Just be prepared to listen and acknowledge the experiences of others; do more listening and reading than talking. Be prepared to be in the wrong, and to learn from it.

Being clueless white dudes is our cross to bear, but we get better by first admitting our own cluelessness and going from there. It's literally the very least we can do. Humility for all we don't know and don't have to experience is an appropriate first step.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Yes. Coming from a position of relative power, relative freedom to ignore what life is like for others, can lead to a lot of handwringing about what is paternalistic or condescending or tokenistic. But it's still better to have those conversations and to be wrong frequently, or to get embarrassed often, than not have them or stay silent. Just be prepared to listen and acknowledge the experiences of others; do more listening and reading than talking. Be prepared to be in the wrong, and to learn from it.

Being clueless white dudes is our cross to bear, but we get better by first admitting our own cluelessness and going from there. It's literally the very least we can do. Humility for all we don't know and don't have to experience is an appropriate first step.

And for the love of God, don't tell us we have to get over it or we're just crying racism at every corner.

 

[DietRob]

I posted in this thread earlier about my experiences with my biracial teenagers. I've been away from GAF for a few days doing the xmas marathon but I'm going to make sure to read through the rest of the thread. Especially Mumei's posts since they are always so comprehensive.

I need to understand the issues my children will likely face so I can do my best to mitigate and educate them. Thanks again for the thread and a big thanks to Mumei for the knowledge.

 

[RBK]

Plan on reading through this thread at some point.

Usually want to believe this kind of stuff exist in the world and people use it as a scapegoat, but whatever educates me is always beneficial.

 

[mckmas8808]

I somewhat disagree. While White European culture certainly has its part, I feel that the main cause of all of this mess is slavery. I think that is the root of racism, white supremacy, and all of our measures to keep black people subordinate.

As for affirmative action, I like this article a lot

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...e_for_liberals_to_admit_it_isn_t_working.html

I agree with him. I think affirmative action is a band-aid that doesnt fix the structural problems of our system.

Actually, The New Jim Crow had a really intereseting take on black people in positions of power and influence. She took the claim that it actually hampered change because people could point to people like Oprah and Obama and claim that the system is fine. All you have to do is work hard and you will succeed, just like at Obama, etc. Not to mention that Obama ramped up the Drug War, likely because he felt he had to take a hard stand to make him appear that he wasnt appeasing black voters, or some shit.

First of all, I'd easily argue that when someone is bleeding band-aids are quite useful. It stops infections and it can protect the wound. Of course the band-aid, in of itself doesn't fix the wound put it keeps it from getting worst. I'd say the same can be said for Affirmative Action. It doesn't fix white supremacy (that's not its intentions anyway), but it does protect black people from the wound to a degree of it.

And 2nd I'd also argue that that Obama didn't "ramp" up the drug war. Initially I believe they protected the Drug War in court because it was already the law of the land. And there was probably some other political reason to do that too. But the record shows that he turned around and stop going after non-violent drug offenders. And as of now he told the DOJ to NOT chase after these states that are changing their laws to allow small weed possession.

 

[Sàmban]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92toXdu2KR0