An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Can We Stop Having Conversations About Race?

Every so often, I have been part of a “discussion” on race. Every time I hear this, I start to shudder, because I know where this is all leading and how it will end. We all get together and there are a few speakers. A black person will talk about how unfair life has been for them and a white person will talk about their white privilege. The African Americans (and other persons of color) in attendance, are made to feel bad about their lot in life and the things they have to put up with. The whites in attendance have to feel ashamed of being white and in power. There might be a video about the amount of African Americans in poverty of in prison and how that is a result of racism.

At the end of the “talk” we go our separate ways supposedly feeling good about having this time have a frank discussion on race.

But the thing is, we never had a discussion and nothing ever really changed. The discussion has almost always been “rigged” in that there is one viewpoint that African Americans are supposed to have and one viewpoint that whites are supposed to have. It feels less like an honest conversation and more like a play where we have been handed the lines to speak.

Of course, the reason I am bringing this all up is because of Attorney General Eric Holder’s comments this past week about the United States being a “nation of cowards” by not dealing with race. Holder said that the nation “still had not come to grips with its racial past, nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have.”

In some ways, I find this hard to believe. Since the civil right movement, we as a nation have been talking and facing our racial past. When I watched then President-Elect Obama speak in Chicago’s Grant Park back in November, I saw a multi-cultural audience that reflected America at this moment.

I’m not saying that life is perfect for African Americans. But speaking as an African American, I can say that life for me is a lot better than it was for my father who grew up in the Jim Crow South. Martin Peretz reminds us what has changed:

Holder was eight years old half a century ago. The desegregation of schools had barely begun. The “dream” of Martin Luther King, Jr. was still ringing in the people’s ears and he had only recently been murdered. Black men and women did not figure in our national politics. Black teenagers did not then reasonably aspire to do well at school -the odds were against them–or hope to graduate, as Holder did, from Columbia University (as Barack Obama also did) and from the Columbia Law School. There were no black generals or managing partners of law firms or presidents of the best institutions of higher learning or CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and not many black people at all in the solid middle class. And almost none in the upper middle class. How many blacks were actually rich or even super-rich? No, America is not racial paradise. But it is more integrated, much more integrated than Great Britain and France which used to disdain our bigoted traditions and habits. No longer, believe me, no longer.

But Holder seems to ignore all of this progress. In some ways, that has become the way many liberals have viewed race: highlighting the shortfalls and ignoring the major progress we have made as a nation. We have a black man in the White House, a house that was built by people that looked like our President who were viewed as nothing more than property. That is something to be proud of.

Yes, there are still problems that persist and racism does still exists, but it is not as pernicious and devastating as it once was. Yes, be vigilant, but for God’s sake, be willing to celebrate once in while. As John McWhorter said:

If white people are cowards for not wanting to be called racists, there is a fear as well in people like Holder. It’s not pretty to face that black people will excel, like everyone else, under less-than-perfect conditions. This “conversation” would be social history playing out quite perfectly–but history is never that consummately fair. The Civil Rights revolution was close enough to perfect, and Barack Obama’s election was even closer. Now, it’s time not for a calisthenic “conversation,” but for making our way in reality.

History is not perfect. But we have come a long way. Let’s be willing to say that.

Crossposted at NeoMugwump

  • ljm
    "Depending on your definition of racism, yes."

    I'm not sure there's a definition of racism that wouldn't entail, say, individuals holding racist beliefs.

    "It will always be possible to make people's outcomes a little more equal by making government a little more invasive and abridging people's freedoms a little bit more. So an important question--*the* question, really--is how you know when you're done. Is a program like Affirmative Action going too far, or not far enough?"

    My initial response was a general answer to a general post by Mr. Sanders (who wrote, for instance, "History is not perfect. But we have come a long way. Let’s be willing to say that.") My response was not meant to litigate precisely when freedom must give way to equality in the government sphere--the only thoughtful answer would be that it depends on the particular program and all of the circumstances surrounding it at the time. Anyway, I have a sneaking suspicion we would eventually disagree on whatever program we discussed.

    All I did was encourage a fundamentally different way of looking at things. It may not enrich you, but that doesn't mean it won't enrich others.
  • Dr J
    "But, you can have equality of opportunity and still have rampant racism, can't you?"

    Depending on your definition of racism, yes. If everyone is enjoying the same rights, equal protection under the law, and a generally level playing field, why are anyone's weekend activities a matter of public interest?

    Your contrast between the lowest and the highest standards is problematic. It will always be possible to make people's outcomes a little more equal by making government a little more invasive and abridging people's freedoms a little bit more. So an important question--*the* question, really--is how you know when you're done. Is a program like Affirmative Action going too far, or not far enough? Ambiguous formulations like "positive equality" don't shed any light.
  • ljm
    "Meanwhile conservatives focus on equality of opportunity, and on that measure there is a case to be made that we've already arrived."

    But, you can have equality of opportunity and still have rampant racism, can't you? For example, people can hold KKK rallies on the weekends as their white children attend the same universities as black children.

    If one considers ALL of the myriad implications of racism, I believe there is a consensus that we haven't arrived.

    "Of course that's not really what we want, so that suggests that in this case at least, equality is the wrong goal."

    Then substitute the phrase "positive equality" or "optimal equality."

    "I think defining equality would be helpful."

    There is no universally accepted definition for terrorism, much less one for something as amorphous as equality. But as I alluded to right above, there is more to consider than simply legal or economic issues, it also entails sociological ones.

    "If you accept the concept of a black culture you also have to accept there will be inherent weaknesses and strengths within it. In that case you could continually point to the weaknesses and say that we have not yet achieved equality."

    There is no reason we cannot attempt to address those issues as well. Although I must say that I have witnessed the black culture issue too often be used as a conversation ender, rather than a conversation starter.

    “And then you'd have to advocate government programs to wipe out the inequality, essentially committing the government to a War on Culture.”

    Please recall that I used the term "total equality" simply as a contrast to "our horrible, tragic history." The point was simply about what our orientation should be when judging progress: are we going to use the lowest standard or the highest standard? I feel it necessary to point out that I did not propose any particular program or method of action that could lead to such a Parade of Horribles.
  • Dr J
    "These groups are now part of the power structure, when will blacks get their turn?"

    Rudi, that begs the question of how anyone becomes part of the power structure. You seem to be suggesting that if I put in my time in a gang, eventually someone will decide it's my turn and put me in a position of authority. It might have worked that way for George Bush, but I'm pretty sure he was an exception.
  • DaGoat
    "These groups are now part of the power structure, when will blacks get their turn?"

    Well, there is the president.
  • Rudi
    The criminal minorities, with high incarceration rates, during Prohibition were Italians, Irish and Jews. These groups are now part of the power structure, when will blacks get their turn? The Purple Gang left the Detroit ghettos for the suburbs of Oakland county. The "blacks" get only Royal Oak Township, and the riots of 1967 and 1943. So much for equality, India and South Africa are more progressive than the US and Detroit.

    The Purple Gang:
    Detroit's Infamous Purple Gang

    By Paul R. Kavieff / Special to The News

    July 16, 1999

    The Detroit River was a highway for Canadian liquor during Prohibition. A Detroit News photographer hid in a coal elevator to get this picture of rumrunners loading their cars at the foot of Riopelle in 1929.

    With the advent of Prohibition in Michigan on May 1, 1918, the young delinquents quickly graduated from nuisance types of street crime to armed robbery, hijacking, extortion, and other strong arm work. They became notorious for their high profile manner of operation and their savagery in dealing with enemies.

    The four Bernstein brothers, Abe, Joe, Raymond, and Isadore (Izzy), soon became the recognized leaders of the mob. The Purple Gang was never a tightly organized criminal syndicate but a loose confederation of predominantly Jewish gangsters. By the early twenties, the Purples had developed an unsavory reputation as hijackers, stealing liquor loads from older and more established gangs of rumrunners. The Purple Gang always preferred hijacking to rumrunning and their methods were brutal. Anyone landing liquor along the Detroit waterfront had to be armed and prepared to fight to the death as it was common practice for the Purples to take a load of liquor and shoot whoever was with it. In the early years, the Purple Gang preyed exclusively on other underworld operators, insulating them from the police.
  • Dr J
    Well said, DaGoat. And then you'd have to advocate government programs to wipe out the inequality, essentially committing the government to a War on Culture.
  • DaGoat
    I think defining equality would be helpful. If you accept the concept of a black culture you also have to accept there will be inherent weaknesses and strengths within it. In that case you could continually point to the weaknesses and say that we have not yet achieved equality.
  • Dr J
    "I think there's a consensus that we aren't there yet. If and when that consensus breaks down, determining the precise moment of achievement would be a good problem to have."

    That is a good, prudent answer.

    However I don't think there's as much consensus as you suppose. I see liberals focus on equality of outcome, on which measure we have a great ways to go. Meanwhile conservatives focus on equality of opportunity, and on that measure there is a case to be made that we've already arrived.

    "That would mean that crime would go down. Why is that a bad goal?"

    Less crime is good. But at the risk of being pedantic, to reach equality the black crime rate has to drop while the white one drops less. Indeed, we can probably hit the goal faster if the white crime rate rises. Of course that's not really what we want, so that suggests that in this case at least, equality is the wrong goal.
  • ljm
    "Without troubling to answer an important question: what does "total equality" mean, and how will we know when we've achieved it?"

    I think there's a consensus that we aren't there yet. If and when that consensus breaks down, determining the precise moment of achievement would be a good problem to have.

    "What's the goal state, that blacks commit crimes at the same rate as whites?"

    Considering that the black crime rate is (unfortunately) higher, that would mean that crime would go down. Why is that a bad goal?
  • Dr J
    "Think about the disproportionate number of black males behind prison walls"

    But J, perhaps they're in prison because they're committing more crimes. What's the goal state, that blacks commit crimes at the same rate as whites?
  • JSpencer
    ljm says it well imo. We've made good progress in this country, but we are a long way from resting on our laurels. Think about the disproportionate number of black males behind prison walls, and the disproportionate rate of violent death among black males (for example) and it's easy to see there is room for more "progress". So yes, let's be willing to say we've come a long way, but let's not limit necessary conversation merely because it might make people uncomfortable either.
  • Dr J
    "Shouldn't we instead be comparing our progress to total equality?"

    I fear liberals are doing exactly that. Without troubling to answer an important question: what does "total equality" mean, and how will we know when we've achieved it?
  • ljm
    Liberals understand that the progress that has been made was driven by people who were unsatisfied with the progress that had been made up to that point. For example, a white conservative in 1950 might have said of blacks: "they were slaves a hundred years ago, but look how far they've come. Some of them even own homes now. Can't we be happy that they're not slaves anymore?" We laud people like Rosa Parks and MLK precisely because they were not happy with contemporary assessments of progress such as those.

    So have we come along way? Yes, but that's compared to our horrible tragic history. But why such a low standard? Shouldn't we instead be comparing our progress to total equality?
  • jeburke
    It's not just that we've come a long way in 40-50 years. It's also that in many parts of our society today, people really are integrated -- they do see one another on weekends, to use Holder's standard: on many, if not most, college campuses (except for the historically black southern colleges that want to remain black); in far more suburban neighborhoods than Holder seems to think (my area in a northern suburb of NYC, for example); on the West Side of Manhattan and other such "liberal enclaves" as they are often called; in the US military. And possibly the most important of all, among a growing number of ordinary working class Americans. I can't quantify this, but I see it all the time -- and I notice because 30, 25 or even 20 years ago, one did not see it.

    So a lot of Americans are scratching their heads, wondering what the hell Holder means, since they don't think they need a "conversation," especially those under 40.

    http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC