Book Read Free

Dear White America

Page 4

by Tim Wise


  Of course, there is no evidence that people of color have different work ethics than whites. On any measure of such work ethic—such as the number of hours put in on the job, amount of time spent looking for work when unemployed, willingness to work at a relatively low wage, and willingness to upgrade one’s skills and retrain for a new job—there is either no racial difference between whites and persons of color, or the differences that exist favor those who are black and brown, suggesting an even greater desire on their parts to work and work hard.53 Currently, of persons who are twenty to sixty-four years old and not working, whites are three times as likely as similar African Americans to say that the reason they aren’t working is because they are “not interested” in having a job; blacks who are not working are 2.5 times as likely to be out of work because they can’t find work, despite looking consistently.54

  And really, now—using the history of the Irish, Italians or Jews as evidence that anyone can make it? To begin with, black folks, indigenous peoples and most Latinos—especially Mexican Americans—have always been constructed as outside the orbit of white civilization. Even though European ethnic groups faced discrimination, they were never the objects of caste-like oppression. They may have started out “provisional” members of the white club, but within a very short time were given permanent passes.55 In large part, white ethnic advance came as the direct flip side of black and brown marginalization. Indeed, working-class Europeans had rights and opportunities (like voting and land ownership) extended to them at the very moment free blacks were being stripped of those same rights (during the Jacksonian period); and later, large-scale immigration of Irish, Italians and Eastern European Jews swelled just when immigration from non-European nations was all but shut down. In many ways, these white ethnic groups were used as a buffer between the WASP elite and persons of color, often played off against them in an attempt to divide the loyalties of folks who were in similar class groupings.

  Most European immigrants came to the North at a time when industry was the key to growth thus, they were well positioned to benefit from the opportunities afforded by the modern economy. Blacks, on the other hand, were relegated mostly to the agricultural South, which offered fewer opportunities for advancement. Upon migrating north in search of a better life for their families, African Americans encountered massive violence and race riots (often led by those white ethnics who wished to remain one step ahead of people of color), 56as well as labor union discrimination and residential segregation, in ways that even the most despised European ethnic did not.

  Of course, there is that seemingly sticky matter of Asian success, some of us might reply. They aren’t white, after all, and haven’t been able to “become white” over time, yet they’ve done well. And looked at a certain way, it’s true; the data seem to indicate widespread Asian American success and economic accomplishment. Indeed, as many of us are quick to point out, household income among Asian Americans is higher than that for whites, as are the rates at which Asian Americans have college or advanced degrees. But before we get carried away with this seeming proof of racism’s demise, let’s step back a bit and consider a few things.

  To begin, let’s remember that a disproportionate percentage of Asian Americans came to the United States already having educational and occupational status that would place them in the middle class or above: large numbers, in fact, either already had a college degree or were working on their degree at the time of arrival here.57 This makes Asian Americans a highly self-selected immigrant group—quite different from, and hardly comparable to, either native-born African Americans, indigenous peoples or most Latinos, who came over a contiguous border with the United States.

  Second, let us recall that Asian Americans are far from monolithic: some are doing pretty well, while others are struggling. Poverty rates, for instance, among Chinese Americans and Vietnamese Americans are 50 percent higher than the poverty rates for whites; Korean American poverty rates are two-thirds higher than the rates for whites; and poverty rates for Cambodian, Hmong and Lao Americans are 2.5 times higher than white poverty rates.58

  What’s more, those poverty rate differences between whites and Asians are nationwide aggregate figures; the real situation, in specific communities, is far worse. As it turns out, one of the principal reasons Asian American household income, on the whole, is higher than white household income, is that Asian Americans are concentrated in a handful of places with disproportionately high incomes relative to the rest of the country—but also much higher costs of living. So, for instance, 55 percent of all Asian Americans live in just six places: Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Honolulu, Washington, D.C., and Chicago.59 For this reason their incomes will tend to be higher, and especially when compared to those of whites, who in the aggregate are not concentrated in such places. But when we compare only whites and Asian Americans living in the same communities, we find that Asian poverty rates are routinely double the rates for whites.60 In other words, despite their relatively high skills and oftentimes greater educational attainment relative to whites, Asian Americans are not doing nearly as well as comparable whites are.

  Indeed, Asian Americans earn less than whites with the same educational attainment, whether we’re comparing high school dropouts, those with diplomas or those with college degrees.61 As just one example, consider that Chinese Americans in professional occupations (who are a highly educated group) earn only 56 percent as much as their white counterparts.62 And the only reason that Asian household income tops that for whites, on average, is because Asian households tend to be larger and have more income earners per household than our households.63 Despite their much higher average educational attainment—thanks to the aforementioned selective immigration—per capita income remains lower for Asian Americans than for whites.64 So much for the model minority myth, and so much for the notion of equal opportunity.

  But even when we know these things, and accept that racism and discrimination are real, some among us still try valiantly to avoid the conversation around such matters. In those instances, we insist that irrespective of the facts, it is best to downplay such problems because to speak of racial injustice and discrimination, especially in the present day, is to encourage a “victim mentality” among people of color. According to this argument, to discuss discrimination is to encourage black and brown folks to see themselves as perpetual targets of white racism.

  Yet as commonly as this argument manifests within our community, if we examine it honestly, it stands out as extraordinarily presumptuous and even racist in many ways. The reason I suggest the argument is racist is that it seems to presume that persons of color are too stupid to already know what it is they’re experiencing, or have experienced, historically. Those who bemoan the so-called victim mindset appear to believe that no one would think about racism were it not for the constant presence of liberals and leftists raising the issue. Second, the argument supposes that black and brown folks are so weak-willed that if they understood the obstacles in their way, they would crumble like cheap piecrust.

  Yet, sadly, by an early age most folks of color are well aware of the negative stereotypes held about their racial groups. Indeed, recent evidence indicates an awareness of these stereotypes as early as the third grade, and rarely later than the fifth: around the age of, say, eleven.65 This awareness is not due to liberals bringing it up, but rather the result of black and brown folks living with the mistreatment that stems from the stereotypes and being exposed to them regularly. No, talking about racism isn’t the problem: racism itself is. To blame the conversation for the problem is like blaming your speedometer for the speeding ticket you just received.

  Naturally, none of us who worry about people of color adopting a debilitating mindset of victimhood ever fret about the same thing happening to others who have been victimized by injustice. We don’t tell Jewish folks to get over the Holocaust, or not to talk about those unhappy matters, lest they cripple themselves under the weight of a victim syndrom
e. Keep in mind that there has been steady support for curricula that address the destruction of European Jewry under Hitler, and no one has suggested that teaching the Diary of Anne Frank might be debilitating to Jewish children. Likewise, we don’t warn crime victims against the adoption of a victim mindset. No indeed, many of us even praise “victims’ rights” groups, as if to suggest that, for these poor souls, victimhood is a status to be venerated and even utilized for the purpose of political influence. Thus we are regularly treated to representatives of “victims’ rights” groups on news programs whenever crime policy is being discussed, as if the mere fact of having lost a loved one to violent crime somehow imbued one with special insights about the best public policies for making our communities safe. So why is it acceptable for these other groups’ members to focus on their victimization, while it’s somehow untoward or even self-destructive for people of color to do so?

  To discuss racism and discrimination is to prepare for its possibility, even while one works hard to overcome its sting. There is no logic whatsoever to the belief that having been forewarned, one must by necessity shrivel up in fear, or slack off, convinced that one hasn’t a chance to succeed. Indeed, the whole history of black America makes that case convincingly. After all, if you were to ask most any black Americans over the age of forty what their parents told them about race when they were younger, what you would hear in reply is as straightforward as it is virtually unanimous: that they would have to work twice as hard as white folks. And why was this so? Precisely because the system was so profoundly unjust and discrimination so deeply ingrained that, despite their best efforts and talent, they would too often be overlooked for the best jobs and opportunities solely because of the color of their skin.

  But does anyone condemn the older African Americans who previously prepared generations of blacks for hard work and success by telling them in no uncertain terms that things were unequal and unfair? Do we believe that blacks in prior eras were crippling their children with the message that they would need to work harder than whites because of racism? Better still, is there any evidence whatsoever that being told such a thing did in fact injure black folks, or make them try less hard than they otherwise might have? If anything, the exact opposite is true. Knowing the odds, black and brown folk tried even harder, because to do otherwise would have all but guaranteed defeat. In short, the claim that discussing racism and discrimination turns people of color into passive victims flies in the face of every bit of empirical evidence on the subject. Knowing the truth inspires perseverance and passionate resistance to victimization, not resignation to one’s status as a target.

  With all this said, however, there is that one final default position to which we so quickly retreat when confronted with the evidence of this nation’s racist past and present. It’s the one about how the United States, however flawed, is really no different from any other country when it comes to such a history. The whole of human existence, after all, has involved a process of certain groups oppressing others. And haven’t we in the United States done more to address and rectify that history than most? Aren’t black and brown folks far better off here than they would be virtually anywhere else on Earth?

  Putting aside whether or not any of those suggestions is true, every one of them is irrelevant. Injustice in one place cannot be dismissed or rendered unworthy of rectification just because there is another injustice of equal or even greater magnitude happening elsewhere. So, for example, one could not argue that Holocaust survivors have nothing to complain about, since after all, they could have been one of the many millions slaughtered by Stalin. To argue that one injustice cancels out the moral claim of victims of other injustices makes no sense, and does intellectual violence to the very notion of rational thought.

  Extending this logic to its ultimate conclusion would lead to some especially appalling positions. Among them, one could say that even under Jim Crow segregation, African Americans probably had it better than, say, black folks in the Belgian Congo—where millions were being slaughtered and worked to death by King Leopold—and therefore, instead of trying to end apartheid here, black folks should have just sucked it up and thanked the Lord for their good fortune. Indeed, following the trajectory of this mindset, one could argue that the United States could even reinstate segregation, and so long as the system remained somewhat less vicious than conditions in some other society, there would be no great injustice in doing so, or at least none worth protesting.

  In short, this is the logic of passing the buck, tantamount to what so many of us did as kids, when, having broken a window playing ball—and having been caught in the act by our mothers—we protested that Billy was also throwing the ball, so it wasn’t only our fault. As I recall (and I doubt any of your experiences are that different), Mom didn’t much care about Billy. If memory serves, she asked something about whether, if Billy decided to throw himself from a bridge, we would, in the manner of a damned fool, follow his example. In other words, we have to take responsibility for our piece of the problem, even though, to be sure, there are others in need of the same self-examination.

  The bottom line is that regardless of whatever progress we have made on these matters—and of course we’ve made quite a bit in certain areas—and however much things may be objectively worse elsewhere, like must be compared with like. Americans of color are Americans, after all, and so their measure of opportunity must be viewed relative to other Americans, not in relation to those in Rwanda or Bosnia or North Korea or anywhere else on earth. To tell them to stop complaining about racism because things could be worse elsewhere is no more appropriate than it would have been to tell the Irish upon arrival in the United States to stop worrying about the discrimination they faced here, since, after all, they could still be starving back home. Along these same lines, I suspect that many of us who point to other nations when the issue of racism here is broached would not like it much were someone to suggest that we should stop complaining about taxes, since, if we lived in pretty much any other industrialized nation on earth, those taxes would be much higher. So ya’ know, maybe we should shut up already and stop whining.

  Look, I know that many of us thought that by now we’d be done with all this chatter about the problem of race in America. Right after the election of Barack Obama, I started getting tons of emails saying one or another version of that very point: the election of a man of color proved once and for all that racism was no longer a real issue in this country. How could it be, if such a man could win the presidency?

  Well, far be it from me to ignore the election of a black man as president, or suggest that such a thing was meaningless. Of course it means something. Obviously, were this nation the same place it was fifty or even twenty years ago, that electoral outcome would have been unthinkable. But before we take even as significant a development as this to signal a sea change in white racial attitudes—the putting away of a racist past for the warm embrace of a multicultural future—we might do well to remember a few things, not the least of which is that most whites, even in many relatively “liberal” blue states, voted against Barack Obama in that election.66 Now, I’m not saying that voting against Obama makes one a racist, but if we’re going to use his victory as proof that racism is dead, we at least have to remember that he only won because of the votes of people of color and young whites, while losing by landslide proportions in every other white demographic. Indeed, whites were generally so unenthused by his candidacy that overall white turnout at the polls in 2008 was down by over 700,000 voters.67

  But even more instructive has been the upsurge in white anger aimed at this president, which has so often manifested in blatantly racist ways.

  For instance, we’ve repeatedly witnessed white conservative activists coming to rallies with signs picturing the president as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose, or sending around emails picturing the White House lawn covered with watermelons, or portraying the first family as chimpanzees or some such thing.68 Li
kewise, the Republican candidate for governor of New York in 2010—a favorite of the conservative right—sent an email to his friends, for which he refused to apologize, in which the president was portrayed in a pimp costume and a picture of traditional Zulu dancers was referred to as an “Obama inauguration rehearsal.”69

  Only slightly less blatant are the ways right-wing commentators have stoked the fires of white anxiety by portraying the president as somehow being out to get us. To wit, the claim that President Obama’s health care reform legislation is really just a backdoor way to obtain reparations for slavery on behalf of black Americans, an argument forwarded by wildly influential media personality Glenn Beck—wildly influential because millions of us made him so.70 Along the same bizarre and yet politically astute line, consider Rush Limbaugh, who has claimed that the president is deliberately trying to destroy the economy and is “happily” presiding “over the decline of America” as “payback” for the history of racism and slavery.71 Though these kinds of arguments are absurd on their face (what kind of reparations, after all, require one to get sick first, in order to get paid?), they are effective tools for whipping up anxiety and anger in a time of social change and insecurity.

  Or consider Eric Bolling of Fox Business News, who recently accused the president of hosting “hoodlums in the hizzouse”—using hip-hop slang to characterize the first family’s home—all because Obama had met with the leader of Gabon in the White House and had invited rapper Common (whose lyrics are anything but gangsterish) to a presidential event a few weeks earlier.72 This was close on the heels of Bolling’s prior remarks that Obama should stop “chugging forties” in Ireland—a reference to forty-ounce bottles of malt liquor stereotypically associated with African Americans—and come home to check out the devastation wrought by tornadoes in Missouri.73 Though the president had indeed been photographed having a pint of beer in an Irish pub, it most certainly had not been a “forty,” as Bolling had to have known. The use of the imagery was deliberate, a dog whistle to those of us who still can’t quite deal with the presence of a black man atop the nation’s political system.

 

‹ Prev