A Call to Action

When it comes to conversations about race and racism, I often feel like a relic from a bygone era. As far as most people are concerned, especially those who aren’t of color, “racism” is a thing of the past.

Due to a strange bit of historical manipulation, black commentators, like me, who complain about racism, are now defined as “racists.” Some claim we’re playing the “race card” in an attempt to coddle blacks who simply refuse to grab hold of their bootstraps and pull themselves up out of America’s ghettos.

It's been almost 40 years since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Yet, some feel as if the statute of limitations has expired on redressing racial injustice. In post-9/11 America, there is a collective sense of boredom with the issue of civil liberties, civil rights, racial inequities and injustices.

Racism still exists, in the workplace; in the criminal justice system, in housing and in our neighborhoods. Yes, it is less blatant, less deadly and even less tolerated. But a “little racism” is like a “little cancer” -- it must be completely eradicated.

Unfortunately, sadly, many of us are called upon to confront waning racial attitudes. This should be more than just a politically-correct, feel-good mandate. In order to honor those who came before us and those who will come after us, Dr. King’s words should still serve as our clarion call to action:

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

Sylvester Brown, Jr.
St. Louis Post Dispatch

After having read Mr. Browns piece. It reminded me of a conversation that I was having with my 21 year old. In her mind Black folk in my generation and older are stuck in the past. She acknowledges that racism still exists, she just feels that my generation is holding on to the pain of years gone by.

I on the other hand have a slightly differnt point of view. I feel as I cannot afford to forget the personal pain that racism has brought to my life. As I have pointed out to my child. My experiences of racism are not just in times gone by. They are apart of my more recent history. I have to admit everytime I get zapped, become a little touchy for a while.

Why is the title "Black, White and Green..." ?
The region should be concerned about all races not just Black. We should be working to include Asian and Hispanics in the discussion of economics in the St. Louis region.
Many new Asian and Hispanic immigrants have become very successful business owners.
Limiting the discussion to "Black and White" seems to send a message of noninclusion and creats an unfriendly welcome to Asians and Hispanics considering the region as a place to live.

Although nobody can deny that racism exists, and it should be gotten rid of, I don't feel that racism is the thing holding back blacks - at least not white on black racism. The racism I see holding back the black community is racism coming from inside the black community itself. Many blacks take pride in ignorance, claiming that being smart and going to school are "white'' traits. If there is blatant racism holding somebody back, I will support fighting against it. But in my experience, the race card is played too often and in most situations is completely unwarrented. In the business place, there sure is racism - against whites. Affirmative Action is the most outlandishly racist thing to happen to business. A white person doesn't get hired simply because they are white, even though they are more qualified for the job. That's racism.

The problem, Josh, is that not all racism is "blatent" racism which would attract your intervention. Have you heard the term "institutional racism?" A history of discrimination, initially legally sanctioned, has led to a system which discriminates against Blacks. This happens in subtle ways. It can't necessarily be seen everyday by you. It can be seen when you look at lending rates for home loans, poverty rates, wage gaps and the like. Ever see the program from a while back, I think it was on 20/20 or 60 minutes or something where two guys, one black and one white, tried to get a job, a car, an apartment in St. Louis? They were so clearly treated differently, but if you weren't directly comparing their experience you may not have noticed the racism.

Clearly, by your posts on this web site, you have had some experiences in your life that have led to your beliefs. However, I encourage you to open your mind a little to the experiences of others. Have you spoken to many African Americans in St. Louis about thier experience related to race and racism? Do you wonder what it is like for them? For other people? I'm sure you've read things on the subject, but talking to people might be a better place for you to start. Try developing some different relationships.

I don't mean to speak for Josh here, but I feel like that is exactly what I am going to do.

Statistical evidence is very important to me in formulating my opinions on issues. Taking one of your examples of lending rates, it isn't enough in my opinion to prove racism if the statistic says that home lending rates are different. I know from doing plenty of related linear regressions on the subject that lending institutions have incredibly advanced mathematical programs which calculate risk and then by extension the lending rate offered to each individual consumer. Race may very well be one of those factors, but it may not be racism at play. If black people have historically defaulted at a greater rate, why shouldn't a company who reports to stakeholders and wants to maximize profit offer them worse rates? I'm not saying this is the case, but it certainly is a plausible reason for the discrepancy. In fact, it is probably more plausible than asserting that companies in 2007 sit around thinking about ways to hurt black people.

The media example you mentioned falls into a similar category. In order for statistical evidence to apply to a situation, you can't look at a report from an entirely biased media organization which follows around two people to about four places in the St. Louis area. Even if you got 200 people that would still be a relatively insufficient sample size given the size of the population. Not that anecdotal evidence isn't important also, but believing something based on small pieces of anecdotal evidence alone is pretty ridiculous. There are always facts under the surface which may not come out when a story or statistic is first glanced at. This is very, very important in this debate because a quick glance at about 1,000 statistics would lead one to conclude "RACISM!" That just might not be the case though.

The other thing I would say is that, having known him quite well for some time, I know that Josh has plenty of black friends and acquaintances and talks about these issues all the time. I also know he probably wouldn't want me to say that because he hates it when people use the "hey I have a black friend" excuse in defense of allegations of racism or ignorance on racial issues.

Hey, Jdzuk,
I thought you might find this from a July 28, 2007 Associated Press article interesting: "Earlier this month, a report by the Washington-based National Community Reinvestment Coalition found that higher income does not protect blacks and Hispanics from receiving mortgage loans with above-market rates. The report, which analyzed federal data on home loans. concluded that in 2005 blacks in 171 metropolitan areas were at least twice as likely as whites to receive expensive loans, and said the trend was more severe at higher income levels, rather than lower ones. Similar trends were apparent for Hispanics as well.

I don't see any justification for your comment: "If black people have historically defaulted at a greater rate..."

The criteria shouldn't be skin color, it should be on the demographic of those who defaulted. As I'm sure you know, there have been numerous national studies (with statistics far more reaching than the "biased media" study in St. Louis you refer to) that has shown blacks and Hispanics who make the same or better incomes, same or better credit scores and credit histories that were still declined more often, steered to certain neighborhoods and offered higher-interest rates on mortgage loans.

Like you, I don't think "companies in 2007 sit around thinking about ways to hurt black people."

I do, however, think institutional racism, unconscious bias and greed are still amongst us and, often times, winds up hurting blacks and other minorities. Less blatent, less maliced perhaps, but still damaging.

As to your friend, Josh, I have no doubt he has many "black friends." Debbie addressed his comments well but I just wonder how honest Josh's black friends are when they're in his company.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they talk about "the racism coming from inside the black community," how blacks take pride in "ignorance and racism" and how affirmative action takes jobs from more qualified whites.

I can only pray that Josh is about ten years old. If he's gone through high school and even casually studied slavery, the Jim Crow era or legalized segregation and discrimination, I don't think he'd so casually define blacks as "racist."

Maybe Josh is confusing the word "prejudice." Sure there are blacks and whites who may not like each other based on race -- such is life. But "racism..." Blacks have never, ever had the will or the power to practice "racism," at least as it applies to racism in America.

I would also like to hear Josh's black friends describe how they stole jobs from "more qualified" whites. Why is it that so many whites assume that all whites come with automatic superior qualifications? Could it be that the whites weren't qualified? I wonder if any blacks have ever lost jobs to less-qualified whites.

I'd simply love to hear that conversation. -- Sylvester

Sylvester,

It's nice to finally have a thread on the forum with some solid intellectual disagreement. I think this is really the essence of what this forum is supposed to be.

Assuming the study you have pointed me to is accurate and verifiable, that would certainly be very troubling. I am hesitant, however, to completely negate or take back anything I said earlier based on the results of one study. I doubt that if I posted a study from a more conservative oriented organization/think-tank on the forum that those who lean more liberally would take my study as fact either.

That said, I do agree with your point that factors should be analyzed in corrolation with one another. So being "black" should not be a category in and of itself. However, within certain parameters, I don't think it is inappropriate to use race as an additional qualifier IF IN FACT it is warranted. Using race as a factor because of assumptions would be terribly improper, but using it as a factor because of demonstrated evidence would be smart. I've never worked for those companies or created their mathematical models (I've only worked with classroom oriented material), so I can't really speak as an authority as to the way race may or may not be used in calculations.

As a personal side note, I think it would be fantastic for everyone if more black people owned homes. I am not trying in any way to fight against that. If black people are receiving unfair racially influenced treatment, I'll certainly be a leader in the fight against that injustice. The building of community wealth is established primarily through the accumulation of valuable assets, not large amounts of cash or other expendable items. As I have written in an earlier post, this is the way many other minority communities have overcome difficult situations and succeeded in the face of challenges.

My intention, as it usually is on these issues, is not to arrogantly/ignorantly assume or conclude that racism does not exist. I know it does. However, I also believe that many, many people use racial prejudice on the part of whites as an easy answer to difficult questions. I firmly believe that, even if racism were completely and entirely obliterated, that there would remain immense problems within the black community itself. And quite honestly, I think the solution of those problems, which Bill Cosby was much maligned for pointing out publicly, is the most important step TOWARD eliminating racism.

I know I am not a racist at heart, but I do find myself having plenty of "here we go again" type thoughts when black people act in a certain way which I don't typically see amongst my circle of white friends and family members. However, when I see black people who don't act like caricatures of the ghetto thug, I think INCREDIBLY highly of them. And I think that most white people, at least those who aren't terribly and irreversibly racist, feel the same way. If more black people spoke English with proper diction, dressed in attire that made them appear as if they appreciate the intellectual and business worlds, and didn't act the way most white people "expect" them to act, I think white people would start seeing black people in a totally different, and far less negative light.

I know the first reaction to these comments will be: So the black people should all act more white and that will solve the problem. I have to end this post soon, but I need to end by saying that there is nothing inherently "white" about speaking with appropriate diction, being proficient in mathematics, reading books, dressing in business attire, or any other such activities. White people do not own the license to any of those things. Unfortunately, I think from personal observation that a lot of the black kids I knew during my school years felt as if those were white characteristics.

And that is exactly the point that Josh was making. Bickering over semantics in this kind of debate is entirely unwarranted and causes the debate to take about ten steps backward. Your assumptions about Josh basically mean that he can no longer post in this thread because anything he says will now be labelled childish and racist. Which by the way, is something that black people CAN be.

Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Black people can't hold beliefs or doctrines suggested that blacks are superior to whites based on race alone? Interesting. Also interesting that this definition in no way mentions this neo-liberal idea that racism can't exist without the power to enforce it. Where, in this definition, does it say that? Racism without the power to enforce your racist beliefs is STILL RACISM. If a black guy said to me that he would never hire me because I am a cracker and he hates crackers, that is RACISM.

This was a long post, so I hope it was moderately coherent. These issues are vitally important, so keep the discussion going!

Enjoying the debate,
Jeremy

.

I love how the assumption is I've never talked to a black person. Not to be cliche, but my best friend is black. For four years I had classes every day with black peers from the city. I've been taught by black teachers who came out of the city. I've talked about the subject with people from all walks of life. So, if you would, don't presume to know with whom I choose to associate.

Here's how most of the black kids felt about racism - White on black racism needs to be ended. They have felt descriminated against. But it isn't a factor holding them back in life. After I point out several things as I did in the other thread, like attributing intelligence to white people, they admit that there is a lot of racism coming from inside their community. It was actually one of the strongest points they made, that white racists aren't holding them back. They can rise above that kind of thing, whereas you're doomed before you begin when the racism comes from within your own community.

Are you serious? Your best response is to assume that my friends lie to me. Because the only opinion a black person can hold is yours, right? For a person claiming I've the mental capacity of a 10 year old, you've certainly got a great method of argument.

"Oh, you actually know black people? And thy don't agree with my assessment of their lives? No, they're just lying to you about it..."

You pretty much have been, as I've told you how the conversations go. Or am I lying, too?

Please, O' Learn'd One, tell me what I 'ought know! I beseech thee for thy knowledge. No, I'm not 10, and yes, I have studied slavery and Jim Crow. Again, I love how if I have a different opinion than you, I must be uneducated. How about you respect the fact that a smart and educated person can come to a different conclusion than you on a given subject, then you will gain respect in a debate. If you're out to change the world to make it a better place, you really better check the way you speak to people. When you make a comment like that, you close off the connection you have with them, and then all you are is a person to debate.

Racism -

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Explain to me, please, how blacks don't have the power to believe that race accounts for differences in human character or ability. I'd love to hear that.

Definti0wned. :-)

The only assumption made here is by you, Sylvester. I never made the assumption that whites are more qualified. The point I am arguing is when it DOES happen that a more qualified white is passed over for a less qualified black simply to fill quotas, that's wrong. That's called affirmative action, sweetheart, and it's what I was talking about from the beginning.