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
  • 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 Reality of Race: Is the Problem That White People Don't Know or Don't Care?

By Robert Jensen, AlterNet. Posted July 14, 2007.


A recent study exploring white peoples' understanding of the black experience in America reveals that whites still drastically underestimate the cost of being black because they don't want to know or can't face the consequences.

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

More stories by Robert Jensen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"Study shows that white people are mean and uncaring"

That would have been my headline for a recent story from Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, which was reprinted on AlterNet, and reported an Ohio State University study of white people's understanding of the black experience (AlterNet's headline was "Whites Just Don't Understand the Black Experience"). Curiously, the psychologists who conducted the research spun the data in exactly the opposite direction, and the conflicting interpretations tell us much about race relations in the United States.

The researchers found that whites more accurately assessed the burden of discrimination borne by a hypothetical minority group in a fictional country than they did in the specific case of black people's experience in the contemporary United States. In the hypothetical, whites estimated that the minority group members (described in the same terms as black Americans) deserved $1 million in compensation, but when presented with the question in the context of black Americans, the median estimate was $10,000.

That result was not surprising, but I was taken aback by the conclusion one of the researchers drew:

"Our data suggest that such resistance is not because White Americans are mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt or ethically flawed. White Americans suffer from a glaring ignorance about what it means to live as a Black American."

I think the data -- along with all my experience both as a white person and someone who writes about white supremacy -- suggests exactly the opposite:

White Americans are mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt and ethically flawed, because white supremacy has taken a huge toll on white people's capacity to be fully human.

My reasoning is simple: Given all the data and stories available to us about the reality of racism in the United States, if at this point white people (myself included) underestimate the costs of being black it's either because (1) we have made a choice not to know, or (2) we know but can't face the consequences of that knowledge.

On #1: To choose not to know about the reality of a situation in which one is privileged in an unjust system is itself a moral failure. When a system is structured to benefit people who look like me, and I choose not to listen to the evidence of how others suffer in that system, I have effectively decided not to act by deciding not to know.

On #2: If I do know these things but am not willing to take meaningful action to undermine that unjust system, then my knowledge doesn't much matter. Again, I have failed in moral terms.

In either case, white people have incentives to underestimate the costs of white supremacy, to avoid facing our moral failing. Rather than suggesting whites "suffer from a glaring ignorance about what it means to live as a Black American," it's more accurate to point out that we whites typically choose to turn away from (1) the information readily available to us, or (2) the consequences of the information we do possess.

Much the same argument could be made about men's assessment of the cost of being female in a patriarchal culture; or the way in which affluent people view the working class and poor; or how U.S. citizens see the rest of the world. In each case, there's a hierarchical system that allows some to live in privileged positions while consigning others to subordinate status. The systems are unjust, and hence the advantages for the privileged are unjust. There's no shortage of data and stories available to those of us in the privileged positions if we want to struggle to understand the lived experience of those without those privileges. If we willing avoid learning about that experience, or we know about it but fail to organize politically to change those systems, then we are responsible for the systems' continued existence.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: racism, race

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and the author of, most recently, The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights Books).

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:
nice piece...
Posted by: sterlingdave54 on Jul 14, 2007 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bravo. nice piece.......let the healing begin;)

» to quote Lou Reed: "I wanna be black"... Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» The healing has failed. Posted by: zyxwvut
The difference
Posted by: Temporary on Jul 14, 2007 12:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If your...

white...

and RICH...

the world SMILES at you:)

If not...

Liberals sure like guessing...
Posted by: EagleMB on Jul 14, 2007 2:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My guess is that a significant percentage of whites would not become black for any amount of money.

And what is a guess based on a partisan agenda worth?

I also am fairly confident that the median price set by the whites who might be willing to go into the room would be considerably more than $1 million.

Really? Let's apply some logic to this ignorant comment. The median income for a non-hispanic white male in America in $49,000. So if a person worked a minimum wage job for 20 hours a week, they would earn $5,356 per year. If they invested that million dollars in a CD at 4.5% interest, they would now be earning the national median for a white male. Since about half the white men in America make less than $49,000 per year, and most of the white women do as well, it would seem that a majority of white folk would happily turn black, green, or blue for one million dollars.

But wait, you could certainly do better than 4.5% interest, and most black Americans work full time jobs or get paid more than minimum wage. So in reality, even more white folk would happily turn black for that kind of money.

But who needs logic when you have partisan agenda to keep!!!

» Partisan agenda? Posted by: maddy
» Sticks and Stones Posted by: Spot
» RE: Partisan agenda? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: fire discovered in africa! Posted by: EasterBunny
» RE: Liberals sure like guessing... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Liberals sure like guessing... Posted by: sterlingdave54
It's Both
Posted by: JCrowe on Jul 14, 2007 2:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we wanted to know, we'd know. If we knew, we'd have to care.

» RE: It's Both Posted by: dlf
The description of white ignorance of black conditions is true. The example used is dumb.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 14, 2007 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wanting or not wanting to be black is a meaningless proposition. The whole point of equality is that people cannot change what we are born with. Racism is irrational.

The author's premise of some sort of objective measure is also irrational. Can you measure irrationality? Maybe. It's subjective, so one form or other of reliable tests might indicate attitudes, and a measureable degree of irrationality might emerge.

But the author's test of trying to put a price on an irrational attitude is the most unreliable test I can imagine. And it perpetuates the old mistaken idea that the condition of minorities totally depends on majority attitude. Yes, white ignorance is a fact. No, it is not the whole story. Stop muddying the waters.

Jensen is NOT a liberal
Posted by: frosty86 on Jul 14, 2007 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If one reads Jensen's work (including this article), one can see that he works from a radical feminist, anti-capitalist, leftist perspective. He's one of the few people on the left who actually takes sex inequality seriously. He would say that in order to dismantle these inequalities, major transformations would need to occur in our most basic institutions and he tries to get at the roots of these problems.

Let's remember that both liberals and conservatives think that the structure of our society is basically okay, perhaps needing a few adjustments in the case of liberals. That's very different from a radical leftist perspective.

And let me also remind people that labelling an argument as a particular political perspective, as "partisan", does NOT weaken it. That does not address or respond to the argument. The widely-held myth that we can somehow find a neutral stance on these issues drives me crazy. We're talking about issues of inequality and oppression. There is no neutral position to take. If one simply does nothing, then one is allowing the domination to continue and is thus siding with those who are oppressing. No matter what position you take, you're going to be representing somebody's interests (typically your own, though not always), and you thus cannot be neutral.

» ??? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: ??? Posted by: mobile68
» RE:random insults Posted by: imcnotu
» well, uh... Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» I'm not Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Jensen is NOT a liberal Posted by: ankhet
Put another way...
Posted by: Ashoka911 on Jul 14, 2007 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given that the evidence that blacks have been a permanent underclass and that millions of people are in the "sample", then one is FORCED into one of two conclusions:

1) Blacks are indeed inferior ( of course few who believe that would take a public stance to that effect in 2007), or

2) Blacks continue to be subjected to , at the very least, institutional racism, if not somehing more malignant.

Neither of those conclusions are comfortable ones, which puts whites in a cognitively dissonant situation.....Lets watch football!

» RE: Put another way... Posted by: unionpete
Black folks, please stop stabbing me & robbing me at gunpoint
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Jul 14, 2007 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of what little I own; please go bother those rich white people over there someplace. But I'll always support affirmative action, CORI reform etc. because there IS institutional racism...
and I promise that I'll take way more than a million dollars for turning black... uh, I mean, I promise not to take any money for turning black?... (this is as confusing as it was the first time this study came up on AlterNet: is it MORE or LESS racist to take a lot of money in this imaginary scenario?)

» I'll keep trying... Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» how so? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Everything is not so Black & White
Posted by: corazon on Jul 14, 2007 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know several black Africans that can't stand black Americans because they see them as lazy, shiftless, and criminal. They don't socialize with them or date them. They see black Americans as whining and crying as their life passes them by. Meanwhile the average income and education of a black African has skyrocketed as they finish college, buy a home and Benz.
Black Africans still see America as a Land of Opportunity and have taken advantage of everything they can get, while a majority of black Americans, born and raised here, whallow in self pity.

» Perfect! Posted by: Torgo
» RE: Perfect! Posted by: jmooney
» RE: You are correct..... Posted by: ekipnrut
1.1
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 14, 2007 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Man must love the PC crowd and special interest groups, because they help him divide and conquer.

The .1 is for effort.

» RE: 1.1 Posted by: Tom Tele
We Can Reclaim Morality
Posted by: meggars on Jul 14, 2007 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm very glad to see this study revisited, because the previous Alternet article's conclusions were indeed weak. And I'm very glad to see Robert Jensen be the one to address it. I happen to live in the same town at this man, and I know he lives his convictions, he makes a big difference in our community, and I'd be honored to know him as an individual, if I could.

I think it is time for the left (however you define that term) to return to using language of morality. It has been our lodestar all along, and I believe we are far more moral than much of the right, if you define morality as being willing to act on behalf of others instead of primarily in self-interest. We were frightened during the 1970s by the prospect of religiousity governing our thinking, and so abandoned language that smacked of spirituality. But moral failings describes exactly why most of the human misery being visited on the majority of the world is allowed to continue.

I would suggest we avoid Christian terms such as redemption, forgiveness, and salvation in our quest to examine and reclaim our morality, because (a) those terms are often vague and (b) most of the world is not Christian. But there is language to describe this process, found in other cultures as well as, for instance, the 12-step process in our communities.

I'd say one thing further about why white people cannot honestly address racism: White is what is human. Non-white is (no matter how folks argue it) portrayed primarily as non-human. How can you imagine switching places with a non-human?

Here's an exercise that's extremely illuminating: For a set period of time (a week or a month), promise to include "white" in your description of every white person you talk about or refer to. We don't do it -- we don't delineate race except for non-whites. Try making yourself notice whiteness, and give voice to it. See what comes up for you, and for the people you speak with.

Thanks for the article.

» Jensen is no racist. Posted by: Tom Tele
By this logic, Ohio State's next study will be
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Jul 14, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of a group of black people, to see how much money they would PAY to become white?

Then women, to find out how much they would pay to become men? (well the operation costs about $20,000 I've heard)... then they can start on us gays & find out how much we would pay to become straight???

» I've never heard what they charge for that Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Enabling Privilege
Posted by: Urstrly on Jul 14, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Supreme Court has just taken another step toward denying the existence of racism. The only color to which we are blind is white, and now we white people can hide in our little enclaves of privilege and let people of color struggle as best they can. Of course, the token college educated minority is welcome, but who can truly blame Justice Thomas or Condi Rice or Colin Powell for accepting the protection of being honorary white folks? We even extended it to OJ Simpson until things got out of hand. (And then we wondered why a lot of blacks applauded his acquittal.)This hideous administration has enabled white people to behave as racist while at the same time insisting that they do not. It's yet a part of the Big Lie that we have the most righteous nation on earth. I struggle not to be complicit, but it ain't easy.

» RE: nabling Privilege Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: nabling Privilege Posted by: lwbaby
if you are passionate about egalitarianism, what can you do?
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 14, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I lived in the LA area c. 1960-86, there was quite a lot that could be and was accomplished and it made for a very meaningful way of life.

One of the most vivid memories of my childhood is seeing a "Whites Only" drinking fountain for the first time. So overt racism is in the living rather than the historical past. However, the partical success of the Civil Rights Movement has blurred the picture to some extent. White doesn't always mean rich and black doesn't always mean poor.

Richard Wilkinson's The Impact of Inequality shows that in a hierarchy of dominance, your social status is a predictor of your lifespan. Thanks to the media, we see the contrast every day between the rich and the poor. Men on the lowest levels become violent and women tend to get depressed and pregnant. So we are talking about the poorest people regardless of color reacting to their situations as anyone would.

This is a man-made situation (I've seen it being created in England in the last 30 years) which can be transformed. But first we need the vision of a better future. How convenient it is for the powers that be that we have a war to distract and upset us!

jensen is an idiot and a racist
Posted by: EasterBunny on Jul 14, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i mean come on:
"White Americans are mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt and ethically flawed, because white supremacy has taken a huge toll on white people's capacity to be fully human."

is this why many whites support affirmative action, marched in the civil rights movement, try to convince other whites to be less racist, vote against racist politicians, teach their children that racism is wrong, help out non-white neighbors and coworkers, etc, etc? The claim that all white people are "mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt and ethically flawed" is FLAT OUT RACIST. blaming ALL whites for the actions of some poeple who happen to share their skin color is, yes, RACIST. jensen should not be allowed to publish his racism on alternet.

» the current state Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: ver hear of "noblesse oblige"? Posted by: EasterBunny
racism isn't a shame or immoral, it's utterly stupid!
Posted by: olhsson on Jul 14, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Failing to take advantage of somebody's talent because of their eye or hair color is obviously absurd yet people will moralize about skin color rather than recognizing the extraordinary opportunity that has been missed by under-employing African Americans.

African American culture is none-other than the culture and values of our founding fathers. European Americans have suffered self-hatred for years and frequently sought out upper-class European fashion and art as something to define themselves with. It's amazing to watch people also project this self-hatred on African Americans.

I'm English/Irish and Swedish. By far the smartest people I have ever encountered happened to be African Americans. They were high school dropouts who were smarter than the kids I grew up with who graduated from Harvard, Princeton and Yale. They became pop music stars but they should have become some of our nation's leaders.

Racism has easily been a far greater problem for the nation as a whole than it has been for African Americans because we can't really afford to waste extraordinary talent.

We know what we can afford to know
Posted by: hagwind on Jul 14, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our material conditions and experiences hugely influence what we think, what we believe, and what we see -- they influence what we can afford to think, believe, and see. One way or another, we screen out what we can't afford to know. On the whole, this is a good thing. What if every time you climbed into your car or got on a bicycle your mind produced vivid 3-D images of yourself in a flaming wreck?

Privilege is nice to have. True, unexamined privilege looks a lot like stupidity, because it means you're unable to see and understand certain things that are transparently obvious to other people. As a result, women often treat men like dimwits, people of color may not have a high opinion of the intelligence or moral standards of white people, people outside the U.S. are baffled by the cluelessness of USians, etc., etc. Being considered a dimwit or a moral cretin isn't fun, and may elicit cries of "reverse racism" (or "reverse sexism" or "anti-Americanism"), but for most of us it's a small price to pay for hanging on to our privileges. Who cares what "they" think, anyway?

When was the last time you changed a deeply ingrained assumption or belief on the basis of a poll, a study, or someone yelling that you're a dimwit or a moral cretin? The big changes in my way of thinking have mostly come because my personal experiences contradicted my assumptions and because the circumstances of my life made it relatively safe to challenge and change my way of thinking: I didn't stand to lose my family, friends, home, or source of income. Sure, some people will risk everything for "what they believe is right" even when they don't have to. Most of us won't go that far, but we're continually testing the waters: taking little risks and watching for other people's reactions.

Finally -- for many affluent white liberals, race/racism is a much safer issue than sex/sexism. (Class/classism often isn't even on their radar.) Race doesn't follow them home the way sex does. (Yes, of course, many white people live in biracial or multicultural households -- but nowhere near as many as live in households that include people of both sexes.) They can pontificate about it and even call themselves racists without costing themselves anything. The people they pontificate at often have a different take on the issues, and with good reason.

I've seen this study...
Posted by: H_H on Jul 14, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It could've been interpreted in an entirely different way.

"In the hypothetical, whites estimated that the minority group members (described in the same terms as black Americans) deserved $1 million in compensation, but when presented with the question in the context of black Americans, the median estimate was $10,000."

This doesn't suggest "ignorance" at all. It suggests that they're generous when other people are paying compensation. If African-Americans were to be "compensated" they know it would come from their own pockets, regardless of whether or not it's even a fair thing to do. In short: they're acting in a way that a human being would act.

Does it make Jensen feel less guilty to say how awful other white people are?

Ive been telling you whites are out of ballance
Posted by: The Big Raven on Jul 14, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just reading the comments I can tell the trouble most have in dealing with this issue either you fall into the trap of which race is more intelligent or your over come with the guilt with either making or letting slavery destroy what little humanity any of you have left.
Let me make this simple even the most ignorant can understand anytime humans take from one another without asking and then invoking thier "gods" morals to make it allright so they can live with themselfs (for a while anyway it does catch up to us) and then using that religion of greed to justify our right to keep stealing and in-slaving others in the names of these gods and thier children (jesus)
It was allways about the greed ,ego, and just plain ignorance and really it still is I wish the frigging lot of you would go back to your real homelands and solve your problems there whites,blacks,yellows and who ever else GO HOME!

I've been critical of Jensen in the past but not this time
Posted by: daw13 on Jul 14, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Three cheers, Robert, for getting it right. Its about how people commit the Fundamental Attribution Error in order to resolve cognative dissonance. One can't acknowledge the real reason for one's aggression, so one attributes the deservingness of it to those who suffer.

I think the hardest thing for whites to face is our own patheticness. We're empowered only to be bullies. Few of us parlticipate in constructing fascism, we just benefit from it.

Castigating whites is not, unfortunately, an effective way to address their racism. Helping them to acknowledge their fears and insecurties may be. This lesson was taught to me by the most important mentor I've ever had: the Black vice principal of a school run by a racist white principal.

The myth of the meritocracy and the reality of priviledge and cronyism
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 14, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is really what it all comes down to. The central myth of the American experience is that of the settler - the brave and inventive soul, heading out into the wilderness with an ax and a covered wagon to meet his manifest destiny. The rugged individualist with the can-do attitude who overcomes any problems on his own.

The actual facts tell a less inspiring story. The settlers had to kill or drive the local Indian tribes off the best land, although smallpox and other introduced diseases had often already done much of that work for them. The short-sighted exploitation of resources has proceeded apace, and it turned out you really could cut down those immense forests and suck the Colorado river dry before it ever reached the ocean.

The same historical amnesia occurs with slavery. In the slave society, there were slaves, wealthy white slave and landowners, and poor rural whites. The typical ambitious young white man 'from a good family' sought to obtain land and slaves to work the land, and to become wealthy by selling the cotton, tobacco, hemp, etc. that was produced by slave labor. In order to be successful, the white man relied on a network of associations involving friends, family and various institutions. That was the basis of much of the American economy! Brutal slave labor and the genocide of the Indians who had been here for thousands of years - not as pleasant a tale, is it?

Not much has changed. Cronyism is how business gets done these days - it's all a matter of who you know. If black people are excluded from the smokey backroom deals, they won't accumulate wealth and power. The same goes for many other groups of people.

It's true that some things have changed since the days of the Old South and the Civil Rights Struggle. Some black people have been allowed into the higher circles of wealth and power, and have been maneuvering to create their own familial and social power structures (for example: Colin Powell and son Michael, the corporate telecom puppet on the FCC).

Imagine a slightly different old South, in which both wealthy whites and wealthy blacks could be slave and landowners, and in which slaves were replaced by indentured corporate wage slaves. That's what a lot of the world looks like today, with Chinese slave laborers providing cheap products sold at WalMart to a poorer and poorer, dumbed-down American population, while a handful of executives and other plantation owners grow ever more wealthy and powerful as a result.

However, the article misses the real problem in American race relations today: the war against the middle class. The dream of most of the immigrants and ex-slaves who built American infrastructure was not gross amounts of wealth and power - it was simply to join the middle class - to own a house and to be financially secure. Right now, more and more people are losing their homes, both black, white, latino, etc., due to the foreclosure racket run by the sub-prime lending industry.

Would it really come as a surprise to learn that black homeowners are routinely targeted by predatory lenders? Would it come as a surprise to learn that poor white homeowners are also prime targets for these scams? It's not racism so much as taking advantage of ignorance and poverty to steal people's homes.

Thus, a better title might have been 'the priviledge of wealth and class' or 'the new American aristocrats' or something similar.

Martin Luther King recognized that everything wasn't about race - he knew that you couldn't honestly oppose racism while ignoring poverty and imperialism. The subjects all go hand in hand.

Jensen is a professional racist
Posted by: EasterBunny on Jul 14, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He deliberately ignores vast differences in the degree of white racism. In between a violent klansman and a middle class liberal who has some racist notions there's a pretty wide gulf and that gap leads to completely different countries. one thing the people in the "all whites are racist camp" never seem to get is that IF that were true there would have been NO progress in america over the last 200 years. slavery would not have been overthrown, jim crow would not have been defeated, there would have been no civil rights movement, almost no african americans would be elected to any office (since they all have to count on SOME white votes), there would be NO affirmative action, no black middle class,no interracial families, etc. The reality is that whites span the whole spectrum from hard core racists to relatively non-racist to everything in between. a more balanced and nuanced view is needed but professional racists like jensen profit from painting everything in stark, simplsitic terms, so they ignore reality. then he thinks that since he is white he can get away with blatantly racist statements like:
"White Americans are mean and uncaring, morally bankrupt and ethically flawed, because white supremacy has taken a huge toll on white people's capacity to be fully human."

Another example of not taking care of our own
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jul 14, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another example of not taking care of our own ...
yet trying to take care of the rest of the world...

On negative comments
Posted by: sausage on Jul 14, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll wager that may of the negative comments to Dr. Jensen's piece were written by people who are the products of predominantly white suburbs. You know the kind of 'burb that prides itself on its "progressive," at least for big box retailers, outlook and commitment to diversity ("Why, yes, we have many African Americans living here, there's Dr. Stewart for one...can you think of anyone else?") I heard from so many people, even those identifying themselves as "liberals," that they moved to the 'burbs, not because they were prejudiced (Heaven's no!) but because of the schools.

Others of the bigoted-non-bigots who rail against Dr. Jensen's op-ed may come from one of the nation's dying-on-the-vine small cities--Like the one contributing editor Margaret O'Conner writes of in her piece "Black Teacher, White School: It's Always About Race," in this week's edition of Black Agenda Report-- or rural America. These islands of white poverty are as full of the hopelessness and economic dispare as any inner city African American ghetto.

I think that now, in 2007, the United States is a segregated as it ever was. I think this is due, in large part, a failure by liberals to address the ramifications ofSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that set the precedent for busing to promote racial integration in public schools. Liberals of all stripes, from Congressional Democrats to sociologists, haled the ruling as the panacea and primary tool toward achieving racial equality in education, never admitting that a stronger, political pallitive was needed. Of course this liberal inattentiveness played right into the hands of the forces of reaction.

The racial divide in this country is the product of lingering conservative racism and liberal good-intentions. The only winners are the corporate big-wigs and their hirelings in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who stoke the fires of racism to keep the greater majority of Americans from getting a larger share of the economic pie.

SUGGESTION: READ "THE RACE MYTH: WHY WE PRETEND RACE
Posted by: thetruth07 on Jul 14, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EXISTS IN AMERICA" by Joseph L. Graves, Jr. From the book jacket summary: "A leading scientists proves once and for all that race does not exist. While the public debate over the existence of racism and affirmative action continues to rage, preeminent evoluntionary biologist Joseph Graves forever changes how we wil think about race. Graves argues that science cannot account for the radical categories used to classify people, and goes a step further to describe racism as an unintended consequence of evolution. He offers creative, innovative ways to bring true equality to America.
Proving once and for all that race as we know it does not exist, The Race Myth debunks the ancient fallacies that are still held as fact and perpetuated in all areas of life, from damaging medical profiling to misconceptions about athletes. Through accessible and compelling language, Graves reveals the impossibility that any group of humans now in existence has a separate genetic line of descent. The Race Myth also explains why defining race according to skin tone or eye shape is woefully inaccurate and why applying these false categories to assumptions about IQ, behavior, or predisposition to disease has devastating effects.
Demonstrating that racial distinctions are social inventions, not biological truths, The Race Myth brings sound science to one of America's most emotionally charged debates."

terrorist tatics works best when....
Posted by: eosrk on Jul 14, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...racisim is involved. That's how their idealogy gains teeth.

There's only ONE human race
Posted by: willymack on Jul 14, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite archaic dictionary definitions to the contrary and the influence of fools who don't know their ass from their elbows. We're ALL members of this species, and, therefore all on the same boat. The sooner we recognize the beautiful fact of our oneness and begin treating one another with the respect and dignity we all deserve, the better off we'll all be.

Not so surprising, if you buy into the notion that the worth of a man is the content...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 14, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...of his character, rather than the color of his skin.

The author sets up one false dichotomy after the other, mined apparently from the stuff that falls from the south end of a northward-gazing bovine:

My reasoning is simple: Given all the data and stories available to us about the reality of racism in the United States, if at this point white people (myself included) underestimate the costs of being black it's either because (1) we have made a choice not to know, or (2) we know but can't face the consequences of that knowledge.

Or, the people surveyed put less weight on the color of one's skin as the author?

Or, the people surveyed don't have such an irrational fear of "the other" as the author, and would be willing to alter the life in a very minor way for a rather trivial amount of dough?

Or, the results study speak to the heart of the results of equal opportunity initiatives?

Or, there were too few supremacist-types polled (KKK, NOI, etc.) who would logically respond that it would take many millions to change their sacred skin pigmentation, if for any price at all. Strangely, more of these responses appear to be the type that would make the author more satisfied re: "race awareness".

Fully awarnessedetized, indeed.

The short-sighted self-flagellation by the author is ridiculous:

But this doesn't leaving me feeling particularly upbeat. The more I study and organize, the more I realize that the system of white supremacy is woven more deeply into this society -- and, hence in some sense, into me -- than I ever imagined.

There's an error in analysis called information bias. To wit, if you desperately want to examine a phenomenon that you've invested yourself into believing with all your precious little heart, then you're likely to taint your interpretation with "discoveries" that--gee whizz--you were right on the money. It will also lead one to twist slightly more objective studies to suit your dogma/religion/belief structure.

My advice to the author and like-minded disciples of the same religion: Stop putting so much emphasis on a silly thing like skin pigmentation, and focus on the character of your fellow man. Do what Dr. King suggested we do; see the title of this post for more details.

» Dr. King?: Um, NOPE Posted by: maddy
» Sigh. I didn't "champion" King. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» More succinctly... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Quite understandably... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Quite understandably... Posted by: sausage
» That...err...dawg don't hunt. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Required reading for white people:
Posted by: morticia on Jul 14, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NATIVE SON by Richard Wright.

» RE: equired reading for white people: Posted by: dangerouslysane
We don't need no condescension..Hey!! Teacher..Leave Us Blacks Alone
Posted by: ekipnrut on Jul 14, 2007 10:17 AM &nb