Posts Tagged ‘African American’

Being White in Philly

Wednesday, March 6th, 2013

My younger son goes to Temple, where he’s a sophomore. This year he’s living in an apartment with two friends at 19th and Diamond, just a few blocks from campus. It’s a dangerous neighborhood. Whenever I go see Nick, I get antsy and wonder what I was thinking, allowing him to rent there.

One day, before I pick him up for lunch, I stop to talk to a cop who’s parked a block away from Nick’s apartment.

“Is he already enrolled for classes?” the cop says when I point out where my son lives.

Well, given that it’s December, I think so. But his message is clear: Bad idea, this neighborhood. A lot of burglaries and robberies. Temple students are prime prey, the cop says.

I’ve shared my view of North Broad Street with people—white friends and colleagues—who see something else there: New buildings. Progress. Gentrification. They’re sunny about the area around Temple. I think they’re blind, that they’ve stopped looking. Indeed, I’ve begun to think that most white people stopped looking around at large segments of our city, at our poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods, a long time ago. One of the reasons, plainly put, is queasiness over race. Many of those neighborhoods are predominantly African-American. And if you’re white, you don’t merely avoid them—you do your best to erase them from your thoughts.

At the same time, white Philadelphians think a great deal about race. Begin to talk to people, and it’s clear it’s a dominant motif in and around our city. Everyone seems to have a story, often an uncomfortable story, about how white and black people relate.

Another story: Dennis, 26, teaches math in a Kensington school. His first year there, fresh out of college, one of his students, an unruly eighth grader, got into a fight with a girl. Dennis told him to stop, he got into Dennis’s face, and in the heat of the moment Dennis called the student, an African-American, “boy.”

The student went home and told his stepfather. The stepfather demanded a meeting with the principal and Dennis, and accused Dennis of being racist; the principal defended his teacher. Dennis apologized, knowing how loaded the term “boy” was and regretting that he’d used it, though he was thinking, Why would I be teaching in an inner-city school if I’m a racist? The stepfather calmed down, and that would have been the end of it, except for one thing: The student’s behavior got worse. Because now he knew that no one at the school could do anything, no matter how badly he behaved.

Confusion, misread intentions, bruised feelings—everyone has not only a race story, but a thousand examples of trying to sort through our uneasiness on levels large and trivial. I do, too. My rowhouse in Mount Airy is on a mostly African-American block; it’s middle-class and friendly—in fact, it’s the friendliest street my family has ever lived on, with block parties and a spirit of watching out for each other. Whether a neighbor is black or white seems to be of no consequence whatsoever.

Yet there’s a dance I do when I go to the Wawa on Germantown Avenue. I find myself being overly polite. Each time I hold the door a little too long for a person of color, I laugh at myself, both for being so self-consciously courteous and for knowing that I’m measuring the thank-you’s. A friend who walks to his car parked on Front Street downtown early each morning has a similar running joke with himself. As he walks, my friend says hello and makes eye contact with whoever crosses his path. If the person is white, he’s bestowing a tiny bump of friendliness. If the person is black, it’s friendliness and a bit more: He’s doing something positive for race relations.

On one level, such self-consciousness and hypersensitivity can be seen as progress when it comes to race, a sign of how much attitudes have shifted for the better, a symbol of our desire for things to be better. And yet, lately I’ve come to fear that the opposite might also be true: that our carefulness is, in fact, at the heart of the problem.

Fifty years after the height of the civil rights movement, more than 25 years after electing its first African-American mayor, Philadelphia remains a largely segregated city, with uneasy boundaries in culture and understanding. And also in well-being. There is a black middle class, certainly, and blacks are well-represented in our power structure, but there remains a vast and seemingly permanent black underclass. Thirty-one percent of Philadelphia’s more than 600,000 black residents live below the poverty line. Blacks are more likely than whites to be victims of a crime or commit one, to drop out of school and to be unemployed.

What gets examined publicly about race is generally one-dimensional, looked at almost exclusively from the perspective of people of color. Of course, it is black people who have faced generations of discrimination and who deal with it still. But our public discourse ignores the fact that race—particularly in a place like Philadelphia—is also an issue for white people. Though white people never talk about it.

Everyone might have a race story, but few whites risk the third-rail danger of speaking publicly about race, given the long, troubled history of race relations in this country and even more so in this city.

A few months ago I began spending time in Fairmount, just north of the Art Museum. Formerly a working-class enclave of rowhomes, it’s now a gentrifying neighborhood with middle-class cachet and good restaurants. I went to the northern edge, close to Girard Avenue, generally considered the dividing line from North Philly, and began asking the mostly middle-class white people who live there, for whom race is an everyday issue, how it affects them.

Strangely enough, a number of them answered. Their stories bring home just how complicated white people’s negotiation with race and class is in this city, and how varied: Everyone does have a race story, it turns out, and every story is utterly unique.

Early on, during my walks around northern Fairmount, I’m surprised by a couple of things. One is the international flavor. On a warm Sunday in October, I buttonhole a woman I’ll call Anna, a tall, slim, dark-haired beauty from Moscow getting out of her BMW on an alley just south of Girard College. Anna goes to a local law school, works downtown at a law firm, and proceeds to let me have it when we start talking about race in her neighborhood.

“I’ve been here for two years, I’m almost done,” she says. “Blacks use skin color as an excuse. Discrimination is an excuse, instead of moving forward. … It’s a shame—you pay taxes, they’re not doing anything except sitting on porches smoking pot … Why do you support them when they won’t work, just make babies and smoking pot? I walk to work in Center City, black guys make compliments, ‘Hey beautiful. Hey sweetie.’ White people look but don’t make comments. …”

American whites I talk to in Fairmount have a decidedly different take. Our racial history, as horrible and daunting as it is, has created a certain tolerance of how things operate in the neighborhood, an acceptance of an edgy status quo.

One Fairmounter blames herself for her grill being stolen from her backyard, because if you don’t fence it in, she tells me, you’re asking for it. A pumpkin gets lifted from her front stoop in the fall, she buys another. That one gets stolen, she gets one more. It’s called city living. Flowerpots, even trash cans—they don’t stick around. Porch chairs have to be chained together. Your car window is likely to get smashed every now and then.

The danger can be a little steeper. One afternoon, at Krupa’s Tavern at 27th and Brown, a guy named Bob tells me about working in the mailroom at Rolling Stone magazine years ago and shows me an anthology of Beat-era writers he’s reading. I can’t resist asking him about his wire-rim glasses, which are way down on his nose and twisted at an absurd angle—there’s no way he can see out of them.

“Oh,” he says, smiling, “I went home one night from the bar and two guys smashed my face into the cement steps of my house”—that’s what messed up his glasses. “A few days later I got my wallet back in the mail—they had thrown it in somebody’s mailbox.”

He acknowledges that his assailants were black. “Not that that matters,” he says.

In 1950, Philadelphia was a predominantly white city, with blacks comprising about 20 percent of the population. A decade later, that number had risen closer to 30 percent, and four years after that—in the summer of 1964—racial unrest flared in North Philadelphia, largely over brutality against blacks by white cops. Hundreds were injured or arrested, and more than 200 stores in North Philly were damaged or destroyed in three days of rioting, with many never reopening. White flight only accelerated in the next decade, and today blacks make up 44 percent of the city’s population, and non-Hispanic whites 37 percent.

John, who lives on Woodstock, a leafy side street between Poplar and the northern stone wall of Eastern State Penitentiary, has seen the city’s demographics shift firsthand. He’s 87, and has lived on this block since he was five. Since 1930.

It was a different place then, before the war. You could walk home from the Blue Jay restaurant, at 29th and Girard, at any hour. Or up to Ridge to the Amish Market.

John worked in the offices of local long-distance haulers.

Milk and bread and ice delivered to your door. A city worker coming by every evening to climb a ladder to light the gas lamps that cast a beautiful glow. There were four nearby houses of prostitution, and tailors and drugstores, a butcher, barbers, a candy store—a self-contained world. Everybody had a laundry tree in the alley out back, and every Monday there’d be a snow of white—until shirts and towels and sheets began disappearing, right after the Second World War.

That’s when blacks from the South, with chips on their shoulders, John says, moved North. They moved into great brownstones above Girard and trashed them, using banisters and doors to stoke their furnaces instead of buying coal. Before long, it looked like Berlin after the war. Whites moved out.

I ask John when he was last above Girard Avenue. He thinks for a moment. “To a football game,” he says. When? “In 1942.”

Over the years he’s been mugged twice, once for a hundred bucks, once for the bottle of liquor he’d just bought. His house was once broken into, and he lost coats and money and Christmas presents and his father’s gold watch. A steel-tipped arrow once shot through his rear kitchen window, impaling a chair just after his nephew had gotten out of it. He watched as four or five black men appeared on the block one afternoon and tried to break into his brand-new Chrysler Imperial. John stood at his door—they walked away when they saw him. Last summer he was sitting on his stoop in a lounge chair and went in to use the bathroom, and when he returned, there was no chair—a neighbor watched a black kid on a bike zero in to lift it.

There’s more. But John doesn’t express sweeping bitterness or anger. “Oh, I have no problems with blacks,” he says. He was once quite friendly with black neighbors on Poplar, whose alley garages he can see from his porch. “They were working people, nice people, lovely people. I hated to see them move.”

Given the monumental changes he’s seen and his declining health, John no longer risks venturing alone beyond his block. There is a monumental spread, too, in his thinking, when he considers the range of black people who have entered his neighborhood.

He tells me about the time, a Saturday afternoon more than 10 years ago, when he came downstairs to his living room to find a stranger had come in through his front door—“It was a nigger boy, a big tall kid. He wanted money.”

It’s a strange moment, not only because of the ugly word, but because of John’s calm in delivering it, as if it is merely fact, one that explains the vast changes in his world.

Fairmount is now a destination of choice for a certain breed of young professional. And among them I discover a tried-and-true test of racial comfort.

Jen lives on Mount Vernon with her husband, an architect, and two children, eight and six; she’s been in Philly since she came to Drexel from Egg Harbor Township on a basketball scholarship two decades ago. Four years ago, Jen began looking into where Sebastian, now in third grade, would start school.

There’s a very good elementary school in Rittenhouse: Greenfield. And that’s the school the parents in Fairmount—the white, middle-class parents, which is Fairmount—shoot for if they’re going public.

Jen took a look at Bache-Martin, the public school four blocks from her house and 74 percent black: Teachers engaged. Kids well-behaved. Small classes. Plus a gym and an auditorium and a cafeteria, a garden, a computer lab. She enrolled her kids there.

Jen was not in the majority. Other mothers told her, “There is a lot of Greenfield pressure.” That pressure is from fellow Fairmounters: pressure to send their kids, collectively, to the right school. Greenfield test scores are a bit higher. It’s also not nearly so black.

Another mother told Jen: “I didn’t want to be the first”—in other words, the first to make the leap to Bache-Martin. “It takes a special person to be first.” Another told her: “Not everybody is as confident as you.”

Sipping tea in Mugshots on Fairmount Avenue, Jen rolls her eyes over the nut of the problem: Unfounded fear. Groupthink. A judgment on a school without even setting foot in it. “I wouldn’t like to imply that it’s about anything else,” Jen says, but of course it is: race.

Most Fairmounters, of course, aren’t trying to push up into Brewerytown, and their concerns are a little more pedestrian. In early December, I go to a civic-association meeting. On the agenda: the upcoming house tour, the winter social, patio planter boxes to help lessen rainwater in the sewers, and the neighborhood scourge: parking! I talk with Eileen and Bruce, who’s the association’s head, in the cozy glass-enclosed back room of their rowhouse on 25th Street. They’re both retired Philadelphia schoolteachers; we discuss neighborhoods.

Brewerytown residents tend to stay above Girard, they tell me. “At Halloween,” Eileen says, “that’s the only time we see them. Lot of little kids from the other side of the tracks—African-American kids. People still give them candy.”

“People get upset,” Bruce says. “We used to have a parade on Sunday afternoon, kids would get nicely dressed up, and kids from up there”—he points north—“would come barely dressed up.”

Eileen says, “People say—”

“At least dress up,” Bruce says. “Unless they’re working here, most of them don’t come in this direction. They seem happy to stay in their little lot, as it were.”

In a way, that sounds an awful lot like the Philadelphia of half a century ago. Before the race riots of that era, before Frank Rizzo, before race relations became openly tense and violent, the old rules applied. Black people knew their place. The difference now is that white people seem to know their place as well—white people stay in their little lot, too.

The problems seem intractable. In so many quarters, simply discussing race is seen as racist. And so white people are stuck, dishonest by default, as we take a pass on the state of this city’s largely black inner city and settle for politely opening doors at Wawa, before we slip back to our own lives.

We’re stuck in another way, too. Our troubled black communities create in us a tangle of feelings, including this one: a desire for things to be better. But for that sentiment to come true—for it to mean anything, even—I’ve come to believe that white people have to risk being much more open. It’s impossible to know how that might change the racial dynamics in Philadelphia, or the plight of the inner city. But as things stand, our cautiousness and fear mean that nothing changes in how blacks and whites relate, and most of us lose out on the possibility of what Jen has found: real connection.

But this is how I see it: We need to bridge the conversational divide so that there are no longer two private dialogues in Philadelphia—white people talking to other whites, and black people to blacks—but a city in which it is okay to speak openly about race. That feels like a lot to ask, a leap of faith for everyone. It also seems like the only place to go, the necessary next step.

Meanwhile, when I drive through North Philly to visit my son, I continue to feel both profoundly sad and a blind desire to escape.

Though I wonder: Am I allowed to say even that?

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/white-philly/

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Who Likes Bling? The Answer Relates to Social Status

Wednesday, December 19th, 2012

A desire for expensive, high-status goods is related to feelings of social status—which helps explain why minorities are attracted to bling, a new study suggests.

Previous research had shown that racial minorities spend a larger portion of their incomes than do whites on conspicuous consumption—buying products that suggest high status.

But a new study showed that whites could be induced to crave expensive, high-status products if they imagined themselves in a low-status position.

These findings cast doubt on the notion that urban minorities have developed a corrosive “bling culture” that is unique to them, said Philip Mazzocco, lead author of the study and assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus.

“Minorities don’t buy high-status products because of some ‘bling culture.’ It is a basic psychological tendency that we all share when we’re feeling inferior in some part of our life,” Mazzocco said.

“Anyone who is feeling low in status is going to try to compensate. And in our capitalistic, consumption-oriented society, one way to compensate is to buy high-status products.”

In the first experiment, 146 American adults—about half white and half black—were told they would be participating in a study of consumer preferences. They were asked to rate how positively or negatively they viewed 10 products on a nine-point scale from “extremely negative” to “extremely positive.”

Five of the products had been rated by a separate group of people as high in status (fur coat, cuff links, caviar, an Italian suit and Italian loafers), while five were rated as relatively low in status (vacuum cleaner, sofa, refrigerator, washing machine and an unbranded shirt).

The study found that, overall, blacks had more positive evaluations of the high-status products than did whites. But more importantly, blacks who considered their race to be an important part of their identity rated high-status goods higher than did blacks who had lower racial identification.

There was no such difference among whites in the study.

“Because African Americans are seen as lower in status in our society, those who identify more strongly with being black are more likely to compensate by seeking high-status goods,” Mazzocco said.

A second study provided more evidence of the role that status plays in conspicuous consumption. In this experiment, 117 white college students were asked to write a story in which they imagined themselves as a character with certain demographic characteristics.

In all cases, the demographic characteristics—including income—remained the same. But half of the students were asked to imagine their character was white, and half were told their character was black.

Afterward, the participants were asked to rate the desirability of high-status and low-status products. Findings showed that the white students who imagined themselves as a black character rated the high-status products as more desirable than did the white students who imagined themselves as white characters.

“We called this vicarious conspicuous consumption. White students who temporarily identified with a low-status racial group showed an increased desire for high-status products,” Mazzocco said.

The findings don’t relate only to race, he said. Another study showed that other situations involving status can affect how people feel about conspicuous consumption.

In this experiment, 50 white adults were again asked to write a story imagining themselves as a specific character. In this case, the character was always described as being white. But in half the cases the character was a janitor (a low-status job) and in the other half the character was a brain surgeon (a high-status job).

The findings were clear. Participants who imagined themselves as a janitor had more positive evaluations of high-status products than did the participants who imagined themselves as brain surgeons.

In a final experiment, 69 white adults wrote a story in which they imagined themselves as a white or black character. In this case, they rated their desire to own or purchase specific high- and low-status products. They were then asked to rate the level of social status of the character they wrote about, on a scale of 1 to 10.

In this case, the participants who wrote about the black character were more likely to say they wanted to purchase the high-status products, similar to findings in the earlier studies. And they also rated their character as having lower social status than did the participants who wrote about a white character.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-12-bling-social-status.html

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The Price of a Black President

Saturday, November 3rd, 2012

When African-Americans go to the polls next week, they are likely to support Barack Obama at a level approaching the 95 percent share of the black vote he received in 2008. As well they should, given the symbolic exceptionalism of his presidency and the modern Republican Party’s utter disregard for economic justice, civil rights and the social safety net.

But for those who had seen in President Obama’s election the culmination of four centuries of black hopes and aspirations and the realization of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of a “beloved community,” the last four years must be reckoned a disappointment. Whether it ends in 2013 or 2017, the Obama presidency has already marked the decline, rather than the pinnacle, of a political vision centered on challenging racial inequality. The tragedy is that black elites—from intellectuals and civil rights leaders to politicians and clergy members—have acquiesced to this decline, seeing it as the necessary price for the pride and satisfaction of having a black family in the White House.

 

But the triumph of “post-racial” Democratic politics has not been a triumph for African-Americans in the aggregate. It has failed to arrest the growing chasm of income and wealth inequality; to improve prospects for social and economic mobility; to halt the re-segregation of public schools and narrow the black-white achievement gap; and to prevent the Supreme Court from eroding the last vestiges of affirmative action. The once unimaginable successes of black diplomats like Colin L. PowellCondoleezza Rice and Susan E. Rice and of black chief executives like Ursula M. BurnsKenneth I. Chenault and Roger W. Ferguson Jr. cannot distract us from facts like these: 28 percent of African-Americans, and 37 percent of black children, are poor (compared with 10 percent of whites and 13 percent of white children); 13 percent of blacks are unemployed (compared with 7 percent of whites); more than 900,000 black men are in prison; blacks experienced a sharper drop in income since 2007 than any other racial group; black household wealth, which had been disproportionately concentrated in housing, has hit its lowest level in decades; blacks accounted, in 2009, for 44 percent of new H.I.V. infections.

Mr. Obama cannot, of course, be blamed for any of these facts. It’s no secret that Republican obstruction has limited his options at every turn. But it’s disturbing that so few black elites have aggressively advocated for those whom the legal scholar Derrick A. Bell called the “faces at the bottom of the well.”

But as president, Mr. Obama has had little to say on concerns specific to blacks.

Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama weighed in after the prominent black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge, Mass. The president said the police had “acted stupidly,” was criticized for rushing to judgment, and was mocked when he invited Dr. Gates and the arresting officer to chat over beers at the White House. It wasn’t until earlier this year that Mr. Obama spoke as forcefully on a civil rights matter—the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida—saying, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Instead of urging Mr. Obama to be more outspoken on black issues, black elites parrot campaign talking points. They dutifully praise important but minor accomplishments—the settlement of a longstanding class-action lawsuit by black farmers; increased funds for black colleges; the reduction (but not elimination) of the disparities in sentences for possession of crack and powder cocaine—while setting aside their critical acumen.

It wasn’t always so. Though Bill Clinton was wildly popular among blacks, black intellectuals fiercely debated affirmative action, mass incarceration, welfare reform and racial reconciliation during his presidency. In 2001, the Harvard law professor Charles J. Ogletree called the surge in the inmate population “shocking and regrettable” and found it “shameful” that Mr. Clinton “didn’t come out and take a more positive and symbolic approach to the issue of reparations for slavery.” But Mr. Ogletree, a mentor of Mr. Obama’s, now finds “puzzling the idea that a president who happens to be black has to focus on black issues.”

Black politicians, too, have held their fire. “With 14 percent unemployment if we had a white president we’d be marching around the White House,” Representative Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told The Root last month. “The president knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn’t to someone white.”

Some argue that de-emphasizing race—and moving to a “colorblind” politics—is an inevitable and beneficial byproduct of societal change. But this ideal is a myth, even if it’s nice to hear. As Frederick Douglass observed, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.”

Mr. Obama deserves the electoral support—but not the uncritical adulation—of African-Americans. If re-elected he might surprise us by explicitly emphasizing economic and racial justice and advocating “targeted universalism”—job-training and housing programs that are open to all, but are concentrated in low-income, minority communities. He would have to do this in the face of fiscal crisis and poisonous partisanship.

To place policy above rhetoric is not to ask what the first black president is doing for blacks; rather, it is to ask what a Democratic president is doing for the most loyal Democratic constituency—who happen to be African-Americans, and who happen to be in dire need of help. Sadly, when it comes to the Obama presidency and black America, symbols and substance have too often been assumed to be one and the same.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The Great Remigration

Tuesday, September 18th, 2012

A century ago, nine out of ten black Americans lived in the South, primarily in formerly Confederate states where segregation reigned. Then, in the 1920s, blacks began heading north, both to escape the racism of Jim Crow and to seek work as southern agriculture grew increasingly mechanized. “From World War I to the 1970s, some six million black Americans fled the American South for an uncertain existence in the urban North and West,” writes journalist Isabel Wilkerson, the author of The Warmth of Other Suns. {snip}

More recently, however, the Great Migration has reversed itself, with blacks returning to the South. In a broad sense, this reversal fits within a larger demographic shift among Americans in general, who are moving from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt. But the new black migration is nevertheless significant: not only could it portend major changes to the nation’s politics; it also testifies to the liberal North’s failure to integrate African-Americans into the mainstream. As the historian Walter Russell Mead has observed, that failure is “the most devastating possible indictment of the 20th century liberal enterprise in the United States.”

Today, 57 percent of American blacks live in the South—the highest percentage in a half-century.

 

Four factors help explain the Great Remigration. The first, and arguably most important, is the push and pull of job markets. States in the Northeast and on the West Coast, where liberalism has been strongest, tend to have powerful public-sector unions, high taxes, and heavy regulations, which translate into fewer private-sector jobs. In southern locales, where taxes are lower and regulations lighter, employment has grown faster; the fastest-growing cities for job creation between 2000 and 2010 were Austin, Raleigh, San Antonio, Houston, Charlotte, and Oklahoma City.

The second reason for blacks’ southward migration is the North’s higher housing prices and tax rates.

Third, high taxes in northern cities don’t always translate into effective public services. Public schools are a prime example: though class sizes have shrunk and average per-pupil spending has increased markedly over the last three decades, schools with large black populations continue to perform poorly.

Finally, many of the blacks moving to the South are retirees who, like other older Americans, are seeking places with better weather.

The political consequences of that summons may soon become apparent—though not in the North, where those left out of the middle-class expansion will remain and where the traditional liberal solutions to social problems will doubtless continue to be peddled. In the South, however, as the shared experience of discrimination abates and as more middle-class blacks succeed, the gap between the reality of their lives and the old political rhetoric may become too wide to ignore. “In neighborhoods offering the resources and opportunities that facilitate future socioeconomic mobility,” writes Harvard political scientist Claudine Gay, “the likelihood of believing that one’s fate is closely linked to the fate of blacks as a group declines, and pessimism about the severity of antiblack discrimination recedes.”

At the moment, black Americans are among the most reliable Democratic voters. As a group, they constituted 13 percent of the electorate and approached unanimity (95 percent) in voting for Barack Obama in 2008. As they move south and presumably bring their liberalism with them, they may help shift the political balance of power in these conservative states. Alternatively, as they move to states with better business climates, they may see their upwardly mobile and business-friendly attitudes reinforced. They may then slowly shift to the right, even if they remain Democrats.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Presidential Campaign Needs To Be About What’s Best for America, Not Race

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012

As the presidential campaign gets under way, it is in the interest of all Americans that it be about what is the best path to ensure a peaceful and prosperous future for our country. Unfortunately, early indications suggest that appeals on the basis of race will be a key ingredient in the contest.

In May, House Democrats were tutored by a George Soros-funded pressure group, the Center for Social Inclusion, to “address the issue of race to defend government progress,” reported the Washington Examiner.

According to the Examiner, “The prepared content of a… presentation to the House Democratic Caucus and staff indicates that Democrats will seek to portray apparently neutral free-market rhetoric as being tinged with racial bias, conscious or unconscious.”

Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion told the lawmakers that “conservative messages” are “racially coded” and suggested ways to combat them. In Ms. Wiley’s estimation, the facts of matters in question are not important. Rather, she said, “It’s emotional connection, nor rational connection, that we need.”

She argued, for example, that Newt Gingrich’s labeling of President Obama as a “food stamp president” cannot be “a race neutral statement, even if Newt Gingrich did not intend racism.” Thus, even though the food stamp program has grown dramatically in recent years, and despite the fact that most recipients are white, to discuss the question is somehow to engage in “racism.”

This same line of argument has been promoted by members of the Congressional Black Caucus for some time. Rep. Andre Carson (D-Indiana) has said that members of the Tea Party movement “would love to see us (black Americans) as second class citizens…. Some of them would love to see us hanging on a tree.”

Sadly, it is black spokesmen who bring race into the presidential campaign far more than anyone else. Washington Timescolumnist Wesley Pruden notes, “The most pronounced… race-based voting, in fact, was (in the 2008 presidential election) in predominantly black precincts. One such precinct voted 100 per cent for Mr. Obama, percentages in the high 90s were commonplace in black neighborhoods…. Maybe these voters just can’t vote for someone of another race. Or, maybe they’re just taking pride in helping a black man do well. Maybe the white vote against Mr. Obama isn’t about race, but reflects rage against… [a] president who promised to change the old ways and now reveals himself to be just another pol… with a scheme to divide and conquer with the race card. We’ve heard this sad song before.”

One need not share Mr. Pruden’s assessment of the record of the Obama administration to lament the injection of a racial component to the current campaign.

The campaign team of Mitt Romney, it has been reported, is laying plans for an outreach effort to black voters. According toThe Washington Post, “That plan, still in the early stages, ran into the harsh political realities on the ground in Philadelphia… when Romney was treated to a hostile welcome on his first campaign swing through a poor black neighborhood this year. A few dozen protestors met him with chants of ‘Get out, Romney, get out.’”

The Post reports that during Romney’s late-May visit, one Philadelphia resident, Madaline G. Dunn, 78, told reporters that she has lived there for 50 years and she is “personally offended” that he would visit her neighborhood. “It is not appreciated here,” she said. “It is absolutely denigrating for him to come here and speak his garbage.”

Among those heckling Romney from a distance were some of Philadelphia’s most prominent officials, all of the Democrats. Mayor Michael Nutter quipped that Romney had “suddenly somehow found west Philadelphia…. I don’t know that a one-day experience in the heart of west Philadelphia is enough to get you ready to run the United States of America.”

Tara Wall, a former Bush administration official, is a senior Romney communications adviser and the most senior African-American on his team. Recently, she said, “Yes, it’s a bit harder this time. We have a black president. But we can’t go in with the mindset that we aren’t going to win any people over to our side. From a messaging standpoint, we need to be able to communicate and relate to these communities about how they are being impacted by Obama’s policies…. It’s not a ploy, it’s not a tactic, it’s part of who we are. We have to show up.”

The latest Post-ABC News poll shows Romney receiving 5 percent of the African-American vote to Obama’s 92 percent. ThePost reports that, “… there are signs that some of the support may have eroded, as blacks have faced record high unemployment — according to the Quinnipiac poll in Florida, Obama gets 85 percent of the black vote, down from 95 percent in 2008.”

President Obama’s decision to back same-sex marriage has reframed some of the conversation with the black community, especially among pastors. Tara Wall says that Obama’s position on same-sex marriage could give African-Americans with strong religious beliefs a reason to look at Romney or to stay home. But Romney’s core message, she said, will be about black businesses and the 13 percent unemployment rate among blacks.

“The biggest factor is the economic situation that we, as black folks, find ourselves in. It’s been horrendous,” Wall said. “All we’re asking is that people at least give Romney a listen.”

Conservative commentator Star Parker, who is black, notes that, “It’s not hard to understand why black Americans were happy that a black man was elected president of the United States. It was kind of a final and most grand announcement that racism has finally been purged from America. But for the highly politicized parts of black America, this was certainly not the only message. Because for the highly politicized parts of black America, the point has always been to keep race in American politics…. the point was not just equal treatment under the law, but special treatment under the law…. The post-civil rights movement black political culture embraced an agenda exactly the opposite of what the civil rights movement was about.”

In her view, “Its agenda was to get laws and policies that were not neutral but racially slanted and to put individuals in power based on their race and not on their character and capability.”

Identity politics — voting for candidates for public office on the basis of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity rather than on the basis of their individual merit as candidates and the programs they advocate for the country’s future — is a challenge both to the very idea of representative democracy and to the goal of men and women of good will for a genuinely color-blind society. It is unfortunate that just as white Americans have shown their willingness to vote for black candidates, many black spokesmen reject the same color-blind approach to politics.

In the end, when voters decide whether to vote for Barack Obama or his opponent, that choice should be made on the basis of whom the individual voter believes would be best for our country — not on the basis of the race, religion, or ethnicity of the candidate. Black Americans want white Americans to adhere to that standard. They are right to do so — but it is important that they adhere as well.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Report: Obama Needs Better than 2004 Black Turnout

Saturday, July 21st, 2012

One of the country’s oldest civil rights groups says President Barack Obama may have a tougher time winning at least three battleground states in November should black voter turnout fall at least 5 percentage points below the record levels that helped to put him in the White House.

Black voter turnout of 64.7 percent was a significant factor in Obama’s victory in 2008, and African Americans are considered solidly behind Obama now. But having achieved the milestone of electing Obama as the nation’s first black president, black voters may be less motivated to return to the polls in droves again, the National Urban League said in a report to be released Tuesday.

Assuming no change in 2008 voting patterns, Urban League researchers said, black turnout at about 60 percent or below could cost Obama North Carolina and make it difficult for him to win Ohio and Virginia. In addition to diminished voter enthusiasm, the still-ailing economy, persistent high unemployment among blacks, new state voting laws and limited growth in the African American population could help discourage turnout.

“We achieved a high-water mark in America in 2008. For the first time, African Americans were at the table with white America” because the turnout of black voters was just 1.4 points below white voters, said Chanelle Hardy, senior vice president and executive director of the National Urban League Policy Institute.

The league said African-American voters had their biggest impact in North Carolina four years ago. An additional 127,000 black North Carolinians who had not voted in 2004 cast ballots in 2008, and Obama won North Carolina by about 14,200 votes. {snip}

African-American voter turnout has been on a steady climb since 1996, when turnout was just 53 percent, down from the 1992 turnout of 59.2 percent.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Wells Fargo Pays $175M to Settle Race Discrimination Probe

Monday, July 16th, 2012

The Justice Department says Wells Fargo & Co. will pay at least $175 million to settle accusations that it allegedly discriminated against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in its mortgage lending from 2004 through 2009.

The settlement, which needs approval from a judge, would end the investigation into whether the fourth largest U.S. bank between 2004 and 2009 knowingly targeted minorities for risky mortgages that came with higher costs, according to documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“The Department of Justice today filed the second largest fair lending settlement in the department’s history to resolve allegations that Wells Fargo Bank, the largest residential home mortgage originator in the United States, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in its mortgage lending from 2004 through 2009,” said a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The settlement will provide $125 million in compensation for minority borrowers the DOJ said were steered into subprime mortgages, which usually carry higher fees. Wells Fargo will pay $50 million more in direct down payment assistance to borrowers in parts of the country where the DOJ identified large numbers of discrimination victims.

At a news conference, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the government will ensure that borrowers hit hard by the housing crisis will have an opportunity to access homeownership.

Cole said the bank’s discriminatory lending practices resulted in more than 34,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers in 36 states and the District of Columbia paying higher rates for loans solely because of the color of their skin.

Wells Fargo noted in a statement that it has denied the claims.

“Wells Fargo is settling this matter solely for the purpose of avoiding contested litigation with the DOJ,” it said, “and to instead devote its resources to continuing to provide fair credit services and choices to eligible customers and important and meaningful assistance to borrowers in distressed U.S. real estate markets.”

The disclosure came after Bank of America Corp’s Countrywide Financial unit agreed in December to pay a record $335 million to settle similar charges.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Rahm Emanuel’s Cabinet Comes up Short in Diversity

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

When Mayor Rahm Emanuel convenes meetings of his cabinet, the racial breakdown of those top aides hardly reflects the diversity of the city they serve.

In a city in which no single racial group makes up more than a third of the population, almost two of every three City Hall department heads is white. Of 30 Emanuel appointees to the highest-ranking city government positions, only five are black, and three Hispanic, a Chicago Sun-Times analysis shows.

“It’s abysmal,” Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) says of blacks’ under-representation in the upper ranks at City Hall. “We have talked about it with the mayor, but apparently it has fallen on deaf ears.”

In contrast, Gov. Pat Quinn has tapped African Americans and whites to serve in top state posts at a rate that roughly mirrors the size of their communities in Illinois, though Hispanics are relatively scarce in Quinn’s cabinet despite their growing population.

Although an exact comparison is impossible because Emanuel has merged some departments, predecessor Richard M. Daley’s cabinet was similarly skewed toward whites. At the time Daley retired, his 36 department heads included 24 whites, 7 blacks, 4 Hispanics and 1 Arab. Twelve from Daley’s last cabinet continue to work for the new mayor in the same roles.

Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, says the mayor “recognizes the importance of a diverse work force that mirrors the diversity of Chicago” and that he chose aides with a range of backgrounds who are committed to serving the city.

Though the city’s financial problems have limited the first-term mayor’s ability to hire in many departments, Emanuel’s own office—staffed entirely by his political appointees—is about 57 percent white. Only the Fire Department, the inspector general’s office and the city’s Law Department have a higher percentage of white workers, according to city records.

And the seven mayor’s office employees with the top salaries all are white.

Hoyle notes that Emanuel has tapped African Americans to lead three “sister agencies” of city government—the Chicago Public Schools, the Chicago Housing Authority and the City Colleges. The three “are large agencies that are all run by highly qualified African-American mayoral appointees,” she says.

Whites head the city’s two other major sister agencies—the Chicago Park District and the Chicago Transit Authority.

The chairman of the City Council’s Black Caucus, Ald. Howard Brookins (21st), says African-American aldermen have lobbied Emanuel to appoint more blacks to top-level posts since soon after he was inaugurated 14 months ago.

“We brought it up to him within the first month of his administration,” Brookins says. “That was when we started noticing a trend.”

County government’s roughly 22,000 employees include 8,842 blacks, 8,535 whites, 2,265 Hispanics, 1,883 Asians or Pacific Islanders, 62 of unknown race and 50 American Indians or Alaska natives, records show.

Of City Hall’s nearly 33,000 employees, more than 46 percent were white as of April 9, according to data provided by city officials. About 32.7 percent were black, 16.8 percent Hispanic and 2.7 percent Asian.

The Fire Department remained the most heavily white department even after the city was forced by the courts to hire some black applicants.

The largest city department—the 13,703-member police force—was about 49 percent white.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

What Mitt Romney should say to the NAACP

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

I was pleased to hear that you have accepted an invitation to speak in July before the 103rd convention of the NAACP in Houston. In anticipation of that event, I have taken the liberty of writing a speech for you. It’s only a beginning, space limitations being what they are, but it should get you off to a solid start and you can take it from there. So, here it is:

“Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting me to speak before the nation’s oldest and most storied civil rights organization. I propose not to waste this moment by filling it with the usual vague promises and platitudes. Instead, I want to try something politicians almost never try. It’s called straight talk.

“I am not unmindful that, because of my party affiliation, many of you view my presence here with a certain amount of skepticism. Nor am I unaware that the Republican Party has often seemed to go out of its way to earn that skepticism. The examples abound.

“There was, for instance, the time in 1996 when Sen. Bob Dole refused an invitation to speak before you, saying your then-leader was trying to set him up. In 1994 when Jeb Bush was running for governor of Florida, someone asked what he would do for black voters if elected. ‘Probably nothing,’ he said.

“Nor do we have to go back to the ‘90s to find justification for your skepticism. In this very day, we see members of my party seeking to gut the Voting Rights Act and questioning the legality of the Civil Rights Act. We have seen them accused and even convicted of voter suppression. And yes, we have seen my party provide a haven for those whose animus against the president is motivated not by honest political differences, but by simple, malignant bigotry.

“So yes, I am aware that my party has done much to earn your skepticism. It is my hope that today we can begin the process of earning your trust. To that end, I propose a complete reset of the relationship between African-American voters and the Republican Party. Today, I serve notice that we intend to do something we have not done for more than 50 years: compete for your votes.

“For far too long, the Democratic Party has been allowed to depend on your support while offering you little in return. For far too long, it has gotten away with taking you for granted, commanded your loyalty based on ghostly memories of things the Kennedy brothers and Lyndon Johnson did on your behalf in the 1960s. But the last of those men died 39 years ago and it is time African-American voters asked the Democrats a simple question: What have you done for me lately?

“It is not as if the Civil Rights Movement ended all your problems. To the contrary, African Americans continue to be discriminated against in banking, housing and employment. You still have unequal access to quality education and health care.

“And the justice system still betrays you. Under the failed ‘War on Drugs,’ young men from your communities are incarcerated at rates that are a national scandal. In some states, they constitute up to 90 percent of those imprisoned for drug crimes, though they commit less than 15 percent of those crimes.

“Yet, even with an African-American man as its leader, the Democratic Party has failed to raise this unfinished business of the civil rights movement to the level of a national concern. That will change under the Romney administration. Under the Romney administration, we will have no higher priority than to ensure that ‘liberty and justice for all’ means exactly that.

“We will use solid, conservative principles to achieve this goal, to attack the inequities that still hobble African-American people. But I promised you more than vague promises and platitudes and I meant it. Let’s get specific, then.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Escape From Detroit: The Collapse of America’s Black Metropolis, by Paul Kersey

Friday, May 25th, 2012

We last checked in with Paul Kersey with his earlier book Hollywood in Blackface, an exploration of the radically different realities of race in movies, and in the physical world. For his next venture, he has launched an exhaustively-researched inspection of the inward collapse of Detroit, MI.

Whether Kersey is right or not distills to a question of root causes. Many of us would argue that the cause of Detroit’s decline was abandonment by the middle class, which is inevitable once a mania for democratic equality becomes the norm, because democratic states focus on their poorest and least productive at the expense of the most productive in order to prove efforts are being made to enforce equality. A symptom of this, however, is a tendency to focus on ethnic minorities and civil rights at the expense of all other topics. This is a social conceit, not a political one; it’s popular to pity. The result is a tendency to favor the underdog at the expense of others, effectively bleeding a society dry for political objectives just as surely as the Soviets did before their collapse.

This may be the root cause, but in the meantime, Kersey asserts that the intermediate cause was racial strife — and he has the evidence to back it up. White middle class flight occurred only after the race riots of July 1967 which were the worst race riots in American history. Further, other factors do not adequately explain white flight. Conventionally, proponents of integration have blamed the collapse of the auto industry. However, this occurred in the 1970s and the exodus began immediately after the 1967 riots. Further, the suburbs showed no decline from the auto industry fallout; people simply found other jobs. While economic woes may be a contributing cause during the 1970s, the exodus started in the relatively prosperous late 1960s and was part of a larger pattern in which the white middle class moved out of the city for the suburbs as urban violence rose. After the riots, however, whites began to abandon the city wholesale.

Even more importantly, as this book points out time and again, for whatever reason that the white middle class left the city, the city then became ruled by African-American leaders for the African-American majority. This point is perhaps the most important one this book makes. If Kersey has time to do more analysis for a second version of this book, it would behoove him to include an economic history of the auto industry in Detroit to debunk this correlation that is often trumpeted as causation for Detroit’s decline. His analysis of black leadership may be more important, in that he shows how African-American poverty was not alleviated by African-American leadership:

Young was quoted as telling Rose in Detroit’s Agony:

In this country, Black people are victims of racism. It’s not accidental that cities around the nation that have the largest percentage of Blacks, have the largest percentage of poverty, have the largest percentage of crime, and the largest percentage of unemployment.

Immediately after making this assertion (which is true, because once a city goes majority Black, the Visible Black Hand of Economics takes over), Rose points out:

But in Detroit, Blacks aren’t just the majority. They’re the authority. They run the police, the courts, the schools, and city hall. But Black political power has not meant Black economic prosperity.

(245)

This paradox underscores much of the book. If white rule was oppressive, removing that white rule would alleviate the problem, we think. Clearly it has not, and Kersey will give any thinker a run for their money because his analysis of this gap is diligent and thorough. The evidence is overwhelming: since the advent of white flight and African-American government, we haven’t heard much from Detroit. The city is known worldwide for “ruin porn,” or photographs of its once-grand buildings and homes now in decay. Most people find such images depressing because they show abundant potential put to waste.

Kersey draws a distinction between Black-Run America (BRA) or the liberal plan for wealth transfer to poor black Americans at the expense of everyone else, and Actual Black-Run America (ABRA) which he uses to describe the leadership in Detroit and thus to illustrate the negative future offered if BRA succeeds. His thesis seems to be that African-Americans are incapable of self-government, and that a liberal plan to introduce Black-Run America will thus introduce Detroit levels of destruction across the United States. This idea contradicts the notion that most Americans are applying to race, which are expressed most clearly in the Kerner Report (253). This report, like most mainstream news sources and government, argues that since people are equal, the only source of African-American poverty is white racism. Further, the thinking goes, the solution is to spend large amounts of money on “Great Society” styled programs designed to bring equality to people through welfare, education and empowerment programs.

To defeat this mythos, which has the power of being an emotionally-satisfying and clear “easy” answer, Kersey digs deeply into the news articles and books about Detroit’s failings. His strength is as a researcher and contraster of ideas, and most of his arguments do not directly attack dominant paradigms but rather undermine them with clearly contradictory data and then explore those topics like tunnels through the vast mound of information on Detroit. At the end of those tunnels, he finds information that suggests a different truth, and emphasizes it by incorporating it into his narrative of the white middle class versus BRA and its advocates.

Much like the articles on this blog, Kersey is fond of quoting whole sections from his sources, and then explaining them in depth like a sociological analysis from primary sources. This fits right in with the funereal tone of this book as it presides over the decline of “The Paris of the West,” and allows him to approach it as an archaeologist trying to uncover the reasons for the failing of a once-great civilization. His sources often do the best explaining for him, through their inability to address certain possibilities or provide reasons for the decline; Kersey fills in for them using other sources, showing a truth emerging from reading between the lines and correlating similar data from different sources to provide a full picture of events.

In the 1960s, Disingenuous White Liberals (DWLs) like Mayor Jerry Cavanaugh thought that massive spending programs — redistribution of wealth — could maintain a steady peace between the white and black populations of the city. These dreams would spectacularly end in late July 1967 when Black people rioted, but the rest of the nation still clings to the belief that the government can redistribute money to the Black community to maintain the peace. (181)

The writing is compelling with strong and clear topic sentences, formidably readable explanations, and a refusal to drift off-course and ramble. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the copy-editing of this book, which is a bit rough at times and undermines his message. However, as these are blog posts gathered up and republished, it’s understandable that some errors would creep in since blog posts usually happen after work, during dinner, while phones and family members scream, at least for most bloggers. If SBPDL re-editions this book, it could use a rigorous edit to bring out its true power. As it is, the book is a joy to read that zips right along without running the reader into any incoherent parts. It doggedly stays on top of its argument, and owing to its nature as a collection of essays, is redundant, but without losing sight of what it is expressing. The effect here is like layers of an onion, in which each essay provides more clarity on what the previous one expressed.

As a good nationalist, I think Kersey has made a monumental effort here and has most likely identified the proximate cause of Detroit’s downfall, but there is more to the story. Whether African-descended people are capable of self-rule here or in Africa or not is not the question; the real question is, can diversity exist without destroying both the host (majority) and guest (minority) populations? History and current events show us that wherever diversity is tried, no matter what the ingredients, one population ends up impoverished and angry and the other population ends up in the role of perpetual giver, or being those from whom wealth is redistributed. Detroit shows us a valiant effort at making a city diverse and how, because diversity fosters distrust as Robert D. Putnam’s research shows, that valiant effort is doomed to failure because the resulting distrust creates blame, which in turn creates victimization, which in turn creates retribution through crime by the minority and abusive authority by the majority. This pattern repeats time and again even when both groups are white. African-descendend peoples, who evolved to adapt to an environment and social climate that did not emphasize rule-based civilizations, may also have additional challenges, but these are somewhat academic since diversity itself will undermine African-American self-rule and/or white stewardship.

It is important that these contextual musings come secondary to what Kersey so eloquently expresses in this book. When the Founding Fathers of the United States wrote about freedom of speech, this was the kind of book they had in mind. Speech that is universally praised or is inoffensive does not need protection; radical theses that undermine the wrong but popular ways in which we construct our society, on the other hand, not only need protection but require us to be extra-vigilant in promoting and analyzing theme. Whatever we think of the ultimate cause of Detroit’s decline, Escape From Detroit shatters the possibility of the convenient fairy tales we tell ourselves, and shames us into searching more diligently for the actual cause. In that it is a triumph and for those who can think outside of the government-media-populist narrative, one of the major book events of this year.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share