Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Color of Wealth

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted April 1, 2008.


To have a truly productive conversation about race we must address the wealth disparities that perpetuate racial inequality.
Gonsalves

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Sean Gonsalves

Whistle-Blowers Under Attack
The government's attempt to gut a law protecting whistle-blowers does not bode well for our First Amendment rights.
May 12, 2008

Our Great 'Secretocracy'
Government secrecy does not make us safer; it undermines the Constitution.
May 6, 2008

The News Media: Watchdog or Lap Dog?
It is becoming more and more difficult for the news media to undertake serious investigative reporting.
Apr 28, 2008

More stories by Sean Gonsalves

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I'm morally exhausted from dealing with, and talking about, race too.

But if we're going to have a conversation, I like the tone and tenor set by the Senator from Illinois after being forced to go there because of a transparently hypocritical "controversy" in which the black guy is predictably caricatured as "anti-American" and/or "anti-white reverse racist."

In his historic Philadelphia speech on race, Obama envisioned two parallel tracks "on the path of a more perfect union."

Black America, he advised, should embrace "the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past," while white America, Obama rightly noted, ought to honestly -- and without guilt -- confront the fact "that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed."

Before there can be meaningful discussion, typical Americans will need to come face to face with some meaningful facts about U.S. economic history. Beneath the superficial race talk is the very real and complex issue of the color of wealth.

Actually, the important book The Color of Wealth -- written by a multi-racial research team at United for a Fair Economy -- is as good a resource as any to delve into the complexity of race and class in America. It's also a good way to get acquainted with some basic history that helps explain this great country's persistent racial wealth divide.

The racial impasse: according to poll after poll, the majority of white America sees African-American economic prospects being just as good, if not better, than their own. The general perception in white America is that "the playing field is level," the polls tell us. And, if you're an ethnic immigrant, you don't see what all that white supremacist history has to do with you anyway. Yet, a good segment of black America continues to talk about the persistence of "institutional racism" and how whites have an unfair and unacknowledged advantage etc.

Starting with the (obvious) observation conservatives seem to think is some kind of sublime insight into human nature, The COW points out: "of course, individual effort does make a difference in financial success, compared to how the same individual would have fared without putting forth an effort. But Americans begin the race from different starting lines. Not only do well-off people, primarily whites, have significant head starts, but even many working-class whites have modest advantages when compared with working-class people of color, most of whom begin far behind whites' starting line."

So while it's true, for example, that black per capita income doubled between 1968 and 2004, jobs and income are only one small part of the picture. Wealth and assets, and how these economic foundations cascade down through generations by way of inheritance, is at the heart of the matter.

If you look at Census data, The COW correctly notes that "three-quarters of white people own their homes, while a slight majority of people of color are renters. In times of inflation, housing becomes easier to afford for homeowners with fixed mortgage rates, while renters see their housing costs rise."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: race, obama, class, wealth, inequality

Sean Gonsalves is a syndicated columnist and news editor with the Cape Cod Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thanks for this!!
Posted by: Wildroots on Apr 1, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep puttin it down.

Wild Roots

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's Another Fact
Posted by: CommentCulture on Apr 2, 2008 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the wealth Blacks and Whites have was stolen from the Native Indigenous peoples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» and the wealth of the 'indigenous' Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Often hidden.
Posted by: PJAW on Apr 2, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The consequences of racial discrimination are largely not visible or discussed, though they are right out in the open for everone to see. Every now and then, someone brings forth some particular form of injustice that has previously received little discussion. This article is an example of that.

I think we all know what the answer is to the "race" problem, but most of the time we tend to simply allow it to continue because at any given moment it might allow us some advantage, whether that be real or merely perceived. And as those moments string together, they become hours, days, years and a lifetime. And the problem continues, from one generation to the next, though we do seem to be slowly evolving away from it. And when I say "we", I really do mean "we", all of humankind. We all participate in this grand charade that our "races" somehow set us apart from one another. How ironic it is that it is one of the few things that makes us all alike.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Often hidden. Posted by: pfeifer999
» if we were all blind Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: if we were all blind Posted by: PJAW
» *sigh* Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: *sigh* Posted by: PJAW
» pfft! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Often hidden. Posted by: PJAW
» if we were blind Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: if we were blind Posted by: PJAW
» like that'll happen Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Geographical Inequality
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Apr 2, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was a thoughtful and balanced column. But I'd like to suggest Mr. Gonsalves pursue another line of reasoning that is related to what he has started here.

Are there long-term imbalances in the distribution of wealth in our country? Absolutely.

Are some of them caused by a history of slavery and Jim Crow? Absolutely.

Are many of them unjust and reprehensible? Absolutely.

But what of the geographical impact on the distribution of wealth? What if, as a thought experiment, instead of focusing on the racial causes of this unequal distribution of wealth, we approach it geographically?

For the sake of a non-controversial example, let's assume that the persons we're discussing are recent immigrants, ie neither slave-holders or slaves, nor Native American.

Given those criteria a person (of any color) who lived in Massachusetts between 1865 and 1900 had greater economic opportunity than a person (of any color) who lived in Georgia in the same time period. Massachusetts was on a full war footing, with factories at full capacity. Georgia was to a great degree in ashes.

If we look at the disparities in wealth distribution caused in this case by geography, they are no less startling than the disparities that can be directly attributed to race.

And yet, after the devastation that was inflicted on the south was largely repaired, the economic tides turn.

Economic opportunities in the industrial North go into decline from 1920 on, particularly if you net out investment banking and war production.

Many of the manufacturers in the North realized that they had a huge pool of less expensive labor (white and black) waiting south of the Mason-Dixon line. Tens of thousands of workers in cities like Lawrence and Lowell MA and Manchester NH were thrown out of work. Parts of Ohio, Michigan and western Pennsylvania are still reeling from the migration of jobs South.

The family wealth of many mid-tier industrialists was destroyed as their companies could no longer compete with the lower labor costs in cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, and Birmingham.

I'm certainly not suggesting that upwardly mobile blacks in 2008 Atlanta should have to make reparation payments to the devastated French-Canadian families of Manchester, NH.

I'm certainly not suggesting that an African American in Boston or Hyannisport, who has enjoyed far greater opportunity than say, a white coal miner in West Virginia, should be penalized for that inequality, or held to account for it.

My point is simply that there are a nearly infinite number of variables that cause the varied distribution of wealth.

If we continue to equate race and prosperity, as so many politicians and writers of every color seem so eager to do, we're distracting ourselves from the important work of creating wealth and prosperity for ourselves and our families.

It's time to let the past be history, and start moving forward, toward Dr. King's vision of a race-blind country, where people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» your point being heard Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Geographical Inequality Posted by: desidid
» RE: Geographical Inequality Posted by: pfeifer999
Agreed. So where do we go from here?
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 2, 2008 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't even begin to have a fruitful talk about race without acknowledging some basic historical facts, without which you can color this whole debate stuck on stupid.

Best. Line. Ever.

To me, it still feels stuck on stupid. Acknowledging the historical facts sets a baseline and should not and cannot be confused with progress or forward momentum. To me, it feels like we've had this discussion and we're still stuck, maybe not so much on stupid but stuck nonetheless.

Bottom line is, when you got no choice over where you live or how you earn an income (if that option is even available to you anymore thanks to the owning class' monkey-wrenched system), you're most likely damned hungry. Now there's a buncha us in line to try to get some food and there's white and black and brown and yellow and red sisters and brothers all here in line with me and only a couple of us can get those 2-3 boxes of provisions. Now you gonna talk to me about race?! WTF, people. The owning class is starving us and demoralizing us and marginalizing us because we all ain't them! Time we up and kicked some rich boyz ass so we can survive.

Seems to me that's where this conversation is headed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kick THIS rich boys' ass? Posted by: pfeifer999
Family's Wealth
Posted by: aladmin on Apr 3, 2008 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the points here was the difference in what families of different races were able to "hand down" to their children in the form of modest sums for education or starting a home.

I don't doubt that at all, but think that there are other contributing factors avoided here. Factors that are current, and to some extent controllable.

One of the issues that will continue to plague this country is the prevalence of one parent homes whose children live in poverty.

It is difficult for most working class families to make it on one income, next to impossible to save anything "to help out the kids".

Racial inequity in income and property ownership is much lower when studies are adjusted for education levels and number of parents in the household.

It’s a wonder that even a small percentage of children from that background (regardless of race) find their way into the "middle class".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is renting, really?
Posted by: YogiBear on Apr 4, 2008 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The COW correctly notes that "three-quarters of white people own their homes, while a slight majority of people of color are renters.

Until you pay it off, the bank owns your home. It's a lease, really. Fail to pay and they can come get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sg, you're getting lazy...
Posted by: k_the_c on Apr 7, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The people controlling the money supply want you to talk all day long about race, as long as you don't catch wind of what's actually causing the disparity in wealth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not at all lazy Posted by: KaptainSpiffy