White Racism Black Bigotry: The Talk About Race is All Wrong!
Over the last few weeks, it seems no one -- the media, the punditry, social intellectuals and not even African American scholars and activists -- hit the target with a correct analysis about the real issue underscoring the Gates/Crowley incident. Terms or phrases such as, "race," "conversation about/on race," "the race question/issue," "racism," "who's a racist," or "bigot," were bandied about as though the meanings are all the same -- which they're not!
Anyone serious about putting an end to "racial profiling", should discuss this problem with a clear understanding about what's being talked about. To talk about race is a waste of time. To call someone racist, when we don't even know the difference between racism and bigotry is even more of a squander; since the name calling is the equivalent to two children arguing in a sandbox. The race discussion gets us no where fast as we label each other and then seek to "move past the issue" when there is a national uproar.
One teachable moment we will witness from the new Ebony and Ivory duo is that Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley will capitalize on all that's happened; leading them to more notoriety, fame and Ka-Ching. Both men with their very diverse levels of success and world views -- an elderly well known Harvard Professor a part of the Black elite who spends summers at the Inkwell and a good-looking Irish working class cop who loves to protect and to serve will share their powerful experiences working together to help our nation discuss the wrong issue -- race.
Noel Cazenave a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut teaches a course called White Racism. He says he's very concerned the outcome of the incident and the beer at the White House will not even begin to scratch the surface about a problem that is so endemic to society.
"They [Crowley and Gates] are going to do what it takes to redeem their reputations in their respective communities," declares Cazenave. "But I don't see these individuals pursuing the issue of racial profiling in a very serious way as a team or individually; Prof. Gates certainly has the resources to do this -- he did not have to wait until it happened to him personally."
The problem with discussing "issues of race," is that it dummies down the issue of racism to an individual level, when the real problem is at the macro level. "When I teach my class on White Racism, the first thing I tell my students is that I am not talking about your Mama; so don't take it personally," says the author of two books currently working on a third book, The Urban Racial State: Programming Race Relations through Community Action. "The biggest mistake everyone makes about this issue is people are not looking at it as a "system of "race" based oppression."
Cazenave says when people define racism some will say it is a set of beliefs. Others will argue that it is racially discriminatory behavior. However, if one takes the level of analysis about racism and base it upon a system inclusive of beliefs and behavior, then there can be a quality discussion on how to begin to deal with it. Cazenave argues that White Racism operates at five levels -- Societal, Institutional, Formal/Organizational, Primary Group and Individual. So the idea that racism is prejudice plus power is not enough. Racism is a phenomena and epi-phenomena leading from the Macro/Society/White Superiority down to the Micro/Individual/Bigoted.
For African Americans, the notion that they can't be "racist" on a societal and institutional level is correct since they as a group do not control these social structures. However, African Americans have the power to discriminate and can be "racial bigots." "African Americans are gaining more power in society as individuals. You can't say if you have an African American Superintendent of Schools he/she doesn't have the power to discriminate in hiring. It's hard to argue if you have a Latina Mayor of a city, that she does not have the power to discriminate in who she gives contracts to. We have an African American President and he has the power to discriminate," states Cazenave.
Individuals impact the power dynamics of the group and African Americans as a group have grown in power and stature over the decades. The Gates/Crowley incident demonstrates African Americans have power to speak about it. With Boston's history of serious racial tension, "The city of Cambridge did not want to see a Jena 6 situation," says Cazenave. "African Americans do have power, but they don't control the system and that is the key difference." Cazenave sites some Black Nationalist separatist groups on an organizational level as examples of racial bigotry as well as African American racial bigotry on a group/individual level against Mexicans and Chinese in comedy.
On December 7, 1993, a Jamaican born black man by the name of Colin Ferguson, opened fire on a Long Island Railroad subway in New York, killing 6 white people and injuring 19 others. It was a clear case of racial bigotry that led to violence and murder committed by an individual. "There is no way for me to tell a person whose son or daughter has been killed by a racial bigot that the individual does not have power or that this is not a serious problem," recalls Cazenave.
On the other hand, an individual or group level acts of racial bigotry by Blacks although wrong and vile doesn't compare in the same way to a system that has racism on all levels -- inclusive of racist politics (conservative and liberal), white supremacy organizations, peer group violence to bigoted individuals. It moves from the society to the individual. This appears to be what has to be deconstructed in order to deal with racial profiling or any form of racial inequality in America -- for Cazenave he strongly believes both conservatives and liberals are not prepared to change the system -- thus individual cases of racial bigotry will continue; pointing to the larger issue no one really wants to change.
Cazenave says focusing only on the bigotry of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Lou Dobbs' birther pathology is a mistake, because their populist racial overture statements are said strictly for commercial purposes and followership.
Their statements by these men propagate racist culture conveniently distracting people from focusing on racism and its social and structural system of race based oppression. Cazenave said he is not at all concerned with proving that an individual is racist bigot or not since most people will deny it and claim that, "you don't know what's in my heart." He is concerned more about the action, the behavior and the outcomes surrounding it. So, who cares if Officer Barrett of the Boston Police department is personally racist, it was his "Banana Eating Jungle Monkey" writing and his sending a racist message he learned at the group level while working for a formal organization and institution (Boston PD) -- now that is troublesome.
When the media, politicians and the public have discussions about race, it's supposed to open a door to being treated equally. However, "the whole concept of race assumes that you have two different groups of people who are inherently unequal," declares Cazenave. "A lot of people don't understand that. They think you can talk about racial equality and go back to the Civil Rights Movement when black and whites came together to hold hands to sing "We shall overcome." It's a nice ideal, but impossible because the concept of race -- is about inequality and has never been about equality."
To continue the commotion that steers us away from the authentic issue, Gates and President Obama will continued to be called racists and Rush and his boys will gladly receive their racist label and hurl it right back with their own style of hyperbole for mass media coverage. So, until someone one day stands up and says we need to bring real reform to a system and the way it is set up supporting racial superiority, then this discussion will continue and never go away because leaders who control the system like it just the way it is.
To conclude, I'm sure someone will call me a "reverse racist" for raising an issue that really gets under the "skin" of a number of whites. I may even be called a "sell out" for critiquing African American bigotry. All-in-all both sides either will play the role of the victim, sycophant or oppressor behind the aim to in no way embrace the true meaning of racism and how to commence its arrest.
Follow Yvonne R. Davis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Teleos1
Robin Lakoff: The Professor, the Policeman, and the Judge
Now that the Gates-Crowley incident is beginning to fade from prominence, it is time to ask about the takeaway: what should we learn from this "teachable moment"?
Mark Goulston, M.D.: Gates, Crowley, Biden and Obama: A Teachable Moment?
In truth, what maintains the walls between races, generations, genders and globally between nations is more "fearful aggression" than true hostility.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you for your for your open view of this issue.... I'm one of those who finds it hard to acknowledge the difference between a bigot, egotist or racist...Sure, i know the definition of each, but it seems to me that bigots = racists = egotist. Allowing such extreme aspects of each other to rule our lives keeps us from realizing our full potential. And, although I hate to admit it, when I manage to bypass ego, I can find a bigoted racists hiding deep within my psyche waiting to take over, along with just about every other vice as well... The trick is to keep those ego driven psychotic selves out of our daily lives. It seems to me that one way to bypass or diminish ego/racism/bigotry is to fully realize that even though humans may have small cultural differences, all are of the same species with the same basic faults and decencies. It that's so then surely the next step would be to accept Spinoza's view that humankind and nature are always one. That is, even though iall creatures are designed to eat one another, that it's the way of the world, until we humans learn to treat all of our fellow creatures, even those we think of as food, with a certain respect, we'll probably never become fully human.
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
bbbear,
How have you been? I am glad you liked the piece and it allowed you an opportunity to gain more information. I am hopeful we can begin to have more discussions like this on a national scale. Be well always. Very interesting points you are raising on Spinoza.
" . . . until someone one day stands up and says we need to bring real reform to a system and the way it is set up supporting racial superiority, then this discussion will continue and never go away because leaders who control the system like it just the way it is."
This, in my opinion, is the most interesting portion of your blog. It highlights the real problem American society has had in achieving racial equality. The issue isn't that no one has stood up requesting and/or demanding "real reform" - as you put it. Countless efforts have been made by countless individuals throughout American history to bring about "real reform". In fact, many individuals who have stood up (MLK, RFK, and M. Evers come to mind) have been cut down for their efforts.
It would appear to me that the real issue is how do people of goodwill, knowing what they know, bypass or remove those who control the system and like the system ". . . just the way it is."
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
JRome,
I appreciate your post. It is interesting you and another person responding to this piece write people of goodwill - this is what is lost in this entire issue. There is so much anger revolving around it. Thank you again.
Insightful, but overtly over-complicated in substance, but clearly that wasn't intentional, this is a complicated issue.
I think a statistical approach works better in communicating actual racism as opposed to bigotry.
Think "Student's T statistic"
What is the variance of proportionality between the means of 2 groups? Using the average variance of portionaility of both groups together as the baseline measurment
Once we except that African Americans born and raised here is the U.S. are fundamentally no different from white citizens born and raised here. (i.e. Eugenics is a crack science)
And we realize that we share some basis aspirations for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Then we should be able to analyze, relative to the baseline, the variance in proportionality in the achievement rates between blacks and whites of the same social-economic level, and geographic region, etc.
If for a area blacks fall below the baseline and white fall above, then the rate of variance in equivalent to the systemic racism facilitating said measure.
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
DannyDanson,
As you know the Huffington Post is not an academic journal; thus it is quite critical we write and attempt to speak in the language for readers to feel and think about. I do not agree the statistical approach is necessarily "the best approach."
Also, in order for what you are suggesting to work, you have to make basic assumptions that African Americans or even other ethnic or racial groups share the same basic aspirations. I suggest that it may not be the case due to perhaps cultural influences, experiences, etc. Concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (my expertise as a political theorist) are debatable unless we view it from a traditional Eurocentric construct and/or perhaps measure it from that perspective. This is why the research you are suggesting can get quite tricky.
I think by finally floating out a pedagogy that has NOT been discussed in the mainstream can perhaps begin to influence a more sensible dialogue that can eventually understood. The biggest road block are the media and the politics of ideology on the both the left and the right.
So, to conclude, the quanitative is only a technical solution to an adaptive problem.
Danny-- either you have a conceptual misunderstanding of how student's T statistic is used or you havent articulated it in a manner that even another statistician would understand.
This is the first I've heard about variance of proportionality in t-tests. If you are refering to comparison of proportions-- that is different from t-tests. So from a statistical perspective, upon which your entire argument seems to be based-- you fail to persuade me of the soundness of your argument to analyze this problem using a t-test.
Yvonne, I would hope that your viewpoints would get more play on this site because everyone else seems to be engaged in group think on the subject of race. Keep it coming w/o fear. One of the things that frustrates me most is the laziness in which blacks and whites of good will engage in this discussion. We are so quick to label each other versus looking at the very real issues of basic equality. I am of the mind that blacks must do for themselves to elevate ourselves in the realm respectability in a macro sense. Then the issue of equality is off the table and we deal solely with bigotry when it rears its ugly head.
"I am of the mind that blacks must do for themselves to elevate ourselves in the realm respectability in a macro sense"
What is it then that we should aspire to, in your mind...?
Not that we should aspire to any one thing... we should continue the advances that we've made. It's the dependency that some of our leadership have that equality is to be bequeathed upon black folks by a benevolent person in power that troubles me. We have the ability to achieve equality on our own. One can never negotiate from a position of weakness. If some one gives us equality it suggests they have power that only God has, and those who are in power (politically) are not God. As long as we're the aggrieved victims of bigotry we'll never get what we want. It's as though we're waiting on those that have racial animosity to change, when it's us that need to change how we respond to it. This is not to say that we don't call it out when we experience it. More conscious doctors and nurses should give us better health care experiences. More financially savvy blacks and other persons of color may afford us better financial opportunities. More conscious education administrators may give us more culturally sensitive education experiences.
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
WinterStorm,
Thank you for your kind comments. God willing, I will keep is comin' ;-). I agree with you regarding both blacks and whites regarding this issue and discourse. It is quite lazy and both groups fall into the same role playing they always do; which in the end dummies down to serious finger pointing and fierce competition of who controls the message and the agenda. Thank you again.
As a former law enforcement employee who has helped to write police policy and has reviewed police actions on behalf of a municipality, Crowley acted in accordance with his "by the book" guidelines. In any domestic situation it is within the officer's authority to remove a person that HE / SHE BELIEVES is behaving "tumultuously." Remember it's the officers vantage point that law and policy leans toward. Right or wrong - like it or not. (I am of the belief that legislators and policy makers should change this).
Had there been a burglary in progress w/o Gates' knowledge it would have been for his safety. Or, had he left the hostile person in the home and then said hostile person punched his/her spouse in the jaw (lol) after law enforcement left, we would be questioning why did the cop not remove the hostile person. We see such in spousal abuse cases. (Now that's a best case scenario.) We've since learned that there was no burglary or other persons to get punched in the jaw and the officer established that it was Gates' home. The professional thing to do was to sternly warn Professor Gates about his actions and leave. Forgive me for rehashing that point, but nobody in my reading ever "walked empathetically" in Crowley's shoes with race aside.
Now, yours is the type of analysis Obama should have engaged in. You would think Gates would've taken more of an scholarly approach as you so eloquently have .
When Jesse, Al, and the New B.l.a.c.k. Pantherz went to the Duke campus to pre-judge the Duke innocents, proclaiming them guilty, were they being fair, open minded, and judicious?
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
CarbonCreditSeller,
Your question needs to be addressed by someone who will go into a petty direction. The question helps to make my point - who cares! This continues the same tension/problem of tit for tat.
Interesting points in this article. Do not agree on all of it, but good points the same.
The articels states:
'So, until someone one day stands up and says we need to bring real reform to a system and the way it is set up supporting racial superiority, then this discussion will continue and never go away because leaders who control the system like it just the way it is.'
And this is critical point of the article. And that someone should not only be b.l.a.c.k.s., but w.h.i.t.e. also standing up and making statements about reform. B.l.a.c.k.s have been crying for reform, it is time w.h.i.t.e.s. join b.l.a.c.k.s. in that venture.
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
Mitsy,
Thank you for your post. I am curious as to why you write white w.h.i.t.e and blacks b.l.a.c.k.s.? thank you.
I believe it is done and the reason I do it is that Huff tends to censor many posts with the two words spelled out.
What's even worse is that you can have the majority race be both racist and bigoted. If you look up the definition of both, you'll find that the Republican party fits neatly into the definition of racial bigotry. There is an intolerance within that party that is paramount in why their ethnic representation is sorely lacking.
It is more likely that a racist, white business owner would hire black people, than a racist, bigoted, white business owner. The bigoted aspect implies that there's an irrational intolerance at play. And that may be the barrier -- the wall, that will never be dismantled. This is what black people often find themselves retaliating to. It may be a misplaced sentiment sometimes, but it's not just based on h@te for h@tes sake.
BodyShotz, As usual, great post! Thanks for the intelligent discussions. I checked out Money Masters today. :)
How in the world did we end up with a Black president with a minority Black population if the majority race is both racist and bigoted? Someone else had to vote for the guy.
(If you're looking for a good example of unchecked bigotry and racism, see, also, "Post-Colonial Africa.")
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
Jonster,
It does not mean because we have an African American President now racism is now finito? Voting for him; particularly white people is not the point at all. Even during slavery and during reconstruction, we had B.K. Bruce elected to the Senate as well as Hiram Revels to the Congress and this was just after slavery. So one does not connect to the other.
Regarding Post Colonial or Neo Colonial Africa systemic racism certainly is a contributing factor to what we have today and for that matter world wide. This is why this issue is so sensitive. Thanks for your post.
Fact: The majority of white voters went with McCain.
...And racism isn't irrational..??
When you talk about racial equality you HAVE to consider this:
"The 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or G.I. Bill of Rights, attracts praise[who?] as one of the most significant pieces of social legislation of the twentieth century for its redeeming effects on both the national economy and its beneficiaries. Academics and politicians credit the benefits offered by the bill with forestalling a widely feared post-World War II economic depression, expanding the home-owning middle class, and forever changing the nature of higher education in the United States."
So here you have one of the most significant social pieces of legislation in our nation's history, one in which can be attributed to the rise of the middle-class and higher education for a greater percentage of Americans; Americans who can then pass on these benefits to their children and so on and so forth.
Now consider this:
"Due to the prevailing social climate that existed in the United States after World War II, one in which racism was a prominent factor, African Americans did not benefit from the provisions of the G. I. Bill of Rights as much as their white counterparts."
To continue building a bridge of understanding, visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_bill
Do we want to treat people as individuals or do we want to judge them by their skin pigmentation? Can we start treating others as we want to be treated or do we have to treat others through race-tinted glasses? Yvonne is correct in saying there are systemic problems involved, but we cannot excuse our individual behaviors by saying its a systemic problem with system answers. We must start with ourselves by treating everyone like we want to be treated. The systemic problems may NEVER be adequately addressed by our democratic republic since those in power don't want to give up that power. You can attempt to speak "truth to power," bu don't give up if truth doesn't overcome entrenched power connections. So, assuming that entrenched power relationships encouraging racism will continue, we, individually, can be our brother's keepers--if we resolve and are willing to do so.
Racism is a structural system that creates and maintains a group's racial social and economic advantage, and to some extent supremaacy and dominance, within a society. Individuals who contribute to racism are racists.
Maybe the term we should really use is prejudice--we prejudge people based on our past experiences and perceptions.
For example, if you see a violinist at the street fair with an open case and a sign saying "raising money for bible college" you make some sort of assumption that this is a "good" kid who may be deserving of your dollar. Take away the sign and pehaps you think of the same person as some sort of hustler or street kid. Clothes influence how you think about that person. Race influences you. Grooming influences you.
We all are hard-wired to make quick judgemental calls about whether we feel threatened by a person or situation. That is how all creatures survive. We trust our "own" and fear the "other." That is universal. I walk down the street at night and I see someone who "looks like a street person" and my heart pounds. The same person in a three piece suit does not produce the same reaction. That is prejudice.
I believe that there is a lot more prejudice than racism in America. The "cure" is to find ways to take away the "otherness" feeling people have. Television has gone a long way towards doing this. Music videos have done some harm in this area.
I think that the word "prejudice" is just a replacement for "bigotry" and neither prejudice or bigotry is the same as racism.
In your examples you used, there were "props" that you indicated would influence one's perception" sign with "Raising Money for Bible College", business suit, etc. What prop would one have to have or not have to mitigate the influence of "Blackness"?
You say, "clothes influence," -- this can be corrected by dressing more professionally.
You say, "grooming influences," -- this is corrected by paying better attention to appearance
You say, "race influences," -- how do I "correct" that?
You can't totally compensate for blackness because it is so definitive. A person's ethnicity is one of the first things you notice. You can see it across a room.
I think the best "prop" has always been for blacks to make whites feel comfortable. The ability to succeed in business is impossible without this skill. It can become a tiring, full time job, because many whites don't really know any blacks (i.e. socialize outside of work). As the author pointed out, whites run a system that has been designed to accommodate them. There are few instances where a white American finds it imperative to "get" minorities.
I don't agree that television has been a boon. That's fine sitting in your living room. The real test is face to face encounters. I suspect that there are very few whites that feel comfortable in a situation where they are the only white surrounded by blacks. I don't think it matters how well dressed, how educated, how nice the blacks are. The discomfort is obvious. However, minorities routinely find themselves "the only one."
Good post!
No, you're wrong. Racism is NOT just when the system is run in a bigoted manner by the powers that be. Racism is NOT bigotry mixed with power. Just because there are professors who teach that, which did not happen until sometime in the early 70s, it doesn't make it true. What you call racial bigotry is also racism. And you can be any color to be racist. We disagree on terminology. And for the record, I don't think the cop who wrongly arrested Professor Gates was acting in a racist manner. He was acting as many cops do who are corrupted by the power of being a cop. I'm sure he would have arrested a white professor under the same circumstances, and been just as wrong in doing so. But that's something no one can know.
You fail at dumbing down the sophisticated social concept.
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
GravitonX,
You fail at recognizing this is probably the first time any person(s) inclusive of African American Scholars who attempted to bring this concept out of the Ivory Tower and into the public sphere. Please share any of your pieces you have written on this matter and how you "dumbed it down" - this sophisticated social concept. I would be pleased to learn and to know.
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
Your disagreement with terminology is not based upon anything that is steeped in any real undertanding of the subject matter except the "acceptable" awareness that most people just hurl around. You can be any color to be a racial bigot period.
If you notice, I do not address the "arrest" of Gates nor Crowley as being racist - that is your assumption. If you read another piece I wrote, I actually discuss both Gates and Crowley in the context of the "acceptable" awareness of most people as NOT being racist.
So, you are missing the point on this piece completely. It is not comfortable for any person to have a frank discussion about racism from a systemic perspective, because it acknolwedges how society, institutions, organizations etc. have play a detrimental role and promoting this. Focuing on the individuals causes us to argue about who is or is not racist and it really is not important. It makes great news.
There's racism (personal hostility towards people of a different skin color) and racialism (apartheid, Jim Crow, etc). It seems that the purpose of the latter was so that whites could feel superior to someone.
Thank you for making this distinction (racism and racialism). I didn't understand it in that way, but it makes perfect sense.
I look forward to learning something new on Huffpost every day!
What bothers me most about this issue is that so many whites (represented by Limbaugh, Beck, et al) seem so angry at minorities because, after centuries of injustice, our virtual monopoly over political power and mainstream culture in America is finally starting to slip. Personally speaking as a white male, I see this as a great historic moment, and don't feel the least bit threatened that women, LGBTs and people of color are claiming their right to equality and self-determination. In fact, I welcome this long overdue social progress.
Does it ever occur to you that they may be mad a person, not a minority? Do you think that maybe they have a problem with anyone is trying to destroy our country? Maybe we could address whether people who see everything in terms of color and ethnicity - as many on this blog appear to do - might actually become what they are accusing others of?
See Yvonne R. Davis's Profile
Garybot,
Please be more specific with your post. It does not make any sense. I would love to clearly understand your point.
The reason SOME fear change is for the same reason we don't have universal health care. Those individuals that you mention share a belief that many of the followers also share which is: The more there is for someone else the less there will be for me.
These folks believe that if too many people of color get into positions of power they will take away from the abundances that whites have enjoyed since this country's inception.
Hmmm, agreed. Too many people see the whole world as a zero-sum endeavour. For someone to get more, I must necessarily get less. That is not always, nor usually, the case, but are incapable of seeing that.
Interesting. When a Black Harvard professor can say to a white cop, "You don't know who you're messing with," and then call up the President of the United States, his longstanding Black friend, that's Power. When the Black governor of Massachussets and the Black mayor of Cambridge weigh in on the policing policies in their state, that's Power. With Thurgood Marshall and now Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court (and soon Sotomayor), that's Power. With Black mayors in cities that one generation ago were hotbeds of racial unrest run by a good ol' boy network, that's Power. That's why this sentence in your article doesn't make sense to me: "So, until someone one day stands up and says we need to bring real reform to a system and the way it is set up supporting racial superiority, then this discussion will continue and never go away because leaders who control the system like it just the way it is."
That's power? What's power? Since Blacks remain significantly out of the relative wealth loop, what was the point of all that? Power?
Oh, I forgot to mention: Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States of America.
And now, if I list a group of Black people who control more money than you and I will ever see, to what will you switch your argument this time Nommo? It's always somethin, eh?
Blacks have made significant progress over the last 50 years - look at who's our President - but I doubt if we will ever usurp the power of white American dominance for the last 200+ years.
You've named one black Harvard Professor ... compared to how many whites?
You've named one black President ... the first since 1776.
You've named three black Supreme Court justices and a soon-to-be Hispanic justice ... and it will still be only two justices of color on the Court at one time, after how many white justices and how many years?
These are examples of how our country's "system" does indeed support racial/white superiority. Why do you think there's so much anger and unrest when people of color make inroads, including the President. Corporate America has not encouraged the dissolution of instititionalized racism, and though some of us have been able to find a way in, including the President, it has more often than not been against fierce opposition on their part.
In order to become a professor, one has to work hard, whether black or white. Also, did you consider that maybe he was a professor because he was black, rather than the most qualified person for the job. When the drop-out rate of blacks in high school exceeds 50% regardless of the billions spent on magnet schools, afro-centric schools, etc. there is a problem to be solved that white America cannot help you solve.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-palast/the-day-the-president-tur_b_247432.html
"According to exhaustive studies by the Federal Reserve Board and the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), African Americans are 250% more likely to get a loan with an "exploding interest" clause than white borrowers - and notably, the higher the income and the better the credit rating of a Black borrower, the more likely the discrimination."
There is still significant institutional racism in this country. Now, you and I didn't steer these folks into these loans; banks did. They're members of "the club", which despite allowing a few black members, is still racist at its core. "The club" is not our friend or anybody else's, and white people need to understand that when we discuss white racism, we're talking about "the club", not some random white electrician.
The flaw in your agrument is that blacks in those positions can't flaunt their power and still maintain it. Obama only commented on the Gates matter when he was asked a direct question at a press conference. Personally, I thought his response was measured. We now have very angry whites who voted for Obama but didn't like his response. May have stated that he had no business commenting on the matter. Until Obama got to be president, the president of the United states was considered the leader of the free world. He, and by extension America, felt free to lecture the entire planet on how they should conduct themselve.
Understand that these angry voters still don't mind Obama issuing orders to Iran or Korea. So, it begs the question: Why is Korea Obama's business, but Cambrige isn't?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
