The Structure of Racism

Reverse-Racism

Yesterday, my friend Marc posted a fascinating article about how Reverse Racism literally cannot exist because of the actual meaning of Racism.  (You can view the original article here.)  It unleashed a firestorm of vitriolic commentary on Marc's news feed that included a mind-blowing comment that I will reprint in full, because it floored me so much.

            "See I'm being discriminated racially right now.  Proof that blacks have too much power:              we haven't rolled into the ghettos in force to make them stop their genocidal war against              whites."

Seriously?  The Blacks in America are conducting genocide against white people?  The 1950's called and they want their racists back.   

But this horrific outpouring of venom displayed by some of the people in Marc's feed got me to thinking about things that I haven't discussed in a blog post in a while.  Being the quasi-social scientist that I am, I felt the need to write about this because people today conflate two different terms. This conflation further inhibits any valid  discussion about race or privilege. 

To begin, I would like to summarize some of the points of the original article and expand on them.  The author makes the very correct point that there is actually no way that "reverse racism" can even exist; the term shows complete ignorance of what racism is, which is a system, as opposed to prejudice which is a personal trait.  Further a person who is a racist is both (highly likely) prejudiced and a subscriber of the system of racism, much like a communist believes in communism.  And to further hammer home the point, "ism" is a suffix that denotes a ideological system, therefore, racism is a system of racist beliefs.

On the other hand, prejudice (derived from the Latin prae-judicium or literally "judgment before the facts") occurs when one individual or group pre-judges another, typically a minority or otherwise un-empowered group. It can be used to create a prejudicial stereotype, as we have seen in abundance in all groups. 

Prejudice can exist in anyone, and in fact most people have some sort of prejudice in their personal make-up.  Whether they fight this impulse or act on it is up to them, but the core of prejudice is there in a wide range of the population.  Further, prejudice can lead to discrimination on an individual basis or in a systematic manner.  Regardless of this, prejudice can be seen at it's base level as a personal failing, and one that can be held by anyone regardless of their status as majority or minority.

The article, however, did not address prejudice, it discussed racism.

Racism is the systematic discrimination of a group of people based on an actual (as in skin color) or perceived trait. (as in religious orientation.)  Racism holds that one group is naturally superior to another, by right of something inherent in their genetic makeup.  Although this concept predated the understanding of genetics, it came into full bloom at the end of the 1800's, when science discovered genes.  Taken further, racism, at it's most extreme leads to Eugenics, which is the attempt to excise the inferior "genetic material" from the gene pool.

Further, although this is not addressed in the article, Racism can hold two flavors, although they are often intertwined.  The first type of Racism is Systematic, where one group is specifically targeted for differential treatment.  Police racism, as seen in the "Stop and Frisk" policy that is so controversial, falls into this typology. 

"Stop and Frisk" is a perfect example of Systematic Racism.  Certain people, namely young black males, are determined to be a group that is more likely to commit a crime, and therefore should be stopped and searched any time they are doing "something suspicious," like buying an expensive belt at Barney's in New York City.  Muslims are also the victims of systematic racism when they are profiled as terrorists.  On the other hand, white people, even when actually doing something suspicious, are rarely stopped by cops.  Further, they are even less likely to be taken in for questioning, charged or convicted.  Because of this, a disproportionate number of people in prisons are African-American.

I would also like to note that Systematic Racism is more closely rooted in prejudice and stereotype than the other type of racism.  It often derives from sweeping generalizations such as, "young black males are far more likely to commit crimes" or "Muslims are more likely to be terrorists."  Sometimes there is a small shred of truth at the core to justify the beliefs, which is then thrown out as a justification of Systematic Racism.  But it should be noted, even when there is some truth present, it usually is distorted and taken out of context. 

For example, while white boys commit as many crimes on average as black youth, they are far more likely to get probation or juvenile hall where their black counterparts are often sent to adult prison.  Similarly, while there are quite a few Muslim terrorists today, in the 80's the world's largest and most powerful terrorist organization was actually the I.R.A., so by the reasoning of a certain group tends to terrorism, people with red hair should be subjected to much more intensive searches than any other group, including Muslims.  Further, since so many people in this country helped the I.R.A., Americans should be suspect whenever they travel abroad. 

The second sort of Racism can be termed either Institutional or Structural.  This occurs when the entire system is structurally set up so that a minority group is denied the opportunities afforded to the majority.  Although prejudice can inform this type of racism, it is generally rooted in a sense of entitlement; "I am better than you, so therefore it is natural and appropriate that I have more opportunities than you do."  Most of the Deep South is founded on a Structural Racism core.

What is interesting about this fact is that there may not always be direct prejudice in this system.  When I lived in the South, there were many people I met that did not claim any sort of prejudice to African-Americans, and yet vehemently defended the system that kept minorities politically un-empowered.  The typical answer when confronted with the atrocities of the system was, "You have to understand, that's just how things are done here."  Another statement that I heard a lot was, "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black." while they voted for politicians who kept the discriminatory apparatus locked in place. 

However, if you support a system that is Structurally Racist, sorry, but by definition, you are a racist.  What you are not necessarily is prejudiced; you're just entitled and oblivious.  And yes, you can be racist without being prejudiced. 

To return to Structural Racism, it is very clear in the educational system in many places in the South.  The schools down there have re-segregated, and have done so in a way that cannot be easily undone.  There will not be an ability to forcibly desegregate them, and have the National Guard enforce it, as there was in the Civil Rights Era.  The reason is, most of the white people have pulled their children out of the public school system and placed them in private schools, either religious or secular.  The ones who can't afford this option are more and more resorting to home-schooling.  This leaves the public school system overwhelmingly populated by "minority" students.

This is even worse than the old "separate but equal," where a thin veneer of comity was attempted.  Now they just pull the kids out of the public system and defund it so that there is little actual education left in the schools.  The public schools have become poorly funded warehouses and day care centers where only the most basic skills are taught.  In no way does a public education in many places in the South prepare students for any sort of higher education.

And this is where the Institutionalization of Racism can be easily seen.  Without the ability to get a quality education, doors to greater potentials are closed.  Not completely of course, there are always ways for the occasional lucky or brilliant kid to escape the trap, but for the most part, most of the children who start and end in the public school system are locked out of many opportunities, thereby not competing with the more entitled white children.  Worse, in this system, help for "disadvantaged" children becomes a form of patronizing charity, further embedding the structural racism into the scheme.

Now on to the reason why "reverse racism" cannot be a thing, at least for the most part.   Given that the system is not set up in such a manner that minorities have the ability to engage in systematic discrimination, there is not the ability to for them to engage in actual racism.  In other words, because they do not control the levers of power, they cannot set up an opposite system to block white people from achieving in life.  They do not block whites from good jobs, nice housing in safe neighborhoods or any of the other trappings of life that the entitled white population expects.  

As a side note, I do want to point out, there has been one group that has been able to actually create a form of reverse racism on the structural level, and that was the Irish.  The Irish, having all normal pathways to assimilation closed to them took over the New York and Boston Police Departments, and in doing so, blocked many non-Irish from entering the force, hence the stereotype of the Irish Cop.  They also took over the Catholic Priesthood in America, but that was a much less powerful position.   Through their power on the police force, they then insinuated themselves into the political machines of several major metropolitan areas.  By doing that, they forced the doors open for their brethren.   However, as I noted earlier, the Irish have long ties to terrorism, so this power play shouldn't be surprising.

Other that that instance, and quite possibly because of it, "reverse racism' has never actually taken hold in this or any other country.  Even when "minorities" are actually the numeric majority, they have not been able to move the levers of power in their direction, even today. 

Systematic and Institutional Racism are on full display today in the frantic efforts of the Far Right in attempting to disenfranchise minority voters through a host of laws designed to suppress the vote.  Cloaked in the sophistry of "voter fraud" these laws are designed to make it harder and less likely for minorities to vote, thereby structurally maintaining a white majority in votes cast, even if the actual percentage of eligible voters skews the other direction. 

By weakening the number of votes of people of color, and concentrating those that remain into isolated districts, the white power system can continue to exert a chokehold on power.  And the worst part of it is, short of violence, it becomes almost impossible to weaken that grasp, as we saw in the 1960's.   Part of the reason that the Civil Rights movement turned so ugly at times stemmed from the need to shake the edifice of control down to its roots.  Even then, the institutional and systematic racism continued, albeit in a somewhat modified and cloaked form.

Therefore, by definition, "reverse racism" cannot exist, and even if the power structure flipped and African-Americans and Hispanics took control of the country, and further oppressed the white population the same way that we oppressed them, it would still be just plain racism, not reverse racism.  Racism can only really exist among the ruling class.

That said, what can, and does exist is prejudice, and it does exist on both sides;  I have met some minorities who were prejudiced against whites.  However, even though any form of prejudice is wrong, it is understandable that minorities might hold ill will against whites.  It is unfortunately a natural reaction to oppression that people come to hate their oppressors.  It is also natural to extend that hate via stereotyping and projection to everyone of that ethnic group.  When you are accustomed to being hated for what and who you are, you tend to hate everyone who is not like you.  However, this is not reverse racism or even reverse prejudice, it is simply standard issue prejudice.

To illustrate this, I would like to return to my experiences gained from living in Savannah.  While I was there, I witnessed the day-to-day, almost casual, racism that was on display there. I saw first hand the fact that blacks were shoved off into a school system that did not in the least prepare them for life, while white people sent their kids to private schools that did so. I saw cops stop and harass black people, who were doing nothing wrong, for the simple crime of being blatantly black in public. I witnessed people with advanced degrees working in menial jobs, simply because the color of their skin prevented them from attaining a better position.  I also saw people being told to "know their place and not try to rise above themselves."  Further, I saw people unable to leave this racist system because they had no economic ability to do so.

In addition, I saw people who were actually angry every time they saw a black person who did not wear shackles on there ankles.  I heard people say that they would like to see slavery put up for a vote among white people, because they would re-institute it in a heartbeat.  Worse, I found out that they still maintain lists in the South of who owns who, in the hopes that they can someday reclaim their property. THAT is racism.

As a natural response to this racist system, some people become very prejudiced against their oppressors.  I'm sorry if some of you get hurt feelings when a black person gives you a dirty look, or acts prejudiced towards you, but given what I witnessed with my own two eyes while living in Georgia, I can completely understand and support their position.

In my next post, I will examine how the discussion of "reverse racism" not only stops honest discussion of racism in America, but actually contributes to the problem. 

Judge Not

Discrimination

Freedom of Religion does not equate to an authorization to discriminate in the name of God.

Recently a baker in Iowa refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, on the grounds that she is a Christian.  Victoria Childress, the owner of Victoria’s Cake Cottage stated, “I didn't do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right, and it's not to discriminate against them. It's not so much to do with them; it's to do with me and my walk with God and what I will answer [to] Him for.”

Wind back the clock fifty years.  In the fifties and sixties, at the height of the civil rights movement, the same comments were frequently made in regards to mixed-race couples.  It was not uncommon to invoke God in a discussion of the immorality of interracial marriage.  Go back an additional twenty years, it was invoked for Jew-Gentile pairings; in the 1800’s, any marriage with someone who was Irish and someone who wasn’t.

God and morality are constantly employed to justify discriminatory attitudes, and freedom of religion is the foundation of that justification.  “I understand I’m being (whatever the discrimination du jour is) but I have to answer to a higher power.  This (action) goes against God.”

First of all let me remind you of Matthew 7:1 “Judge not lest ye be Judged.”  Also Mark 24:4 “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”  The Bible makes it pretty clear, at least as far as the Judeo-Christian ethic is concerned, that God is the only one who has the right to Judge.

This means that mere mortals cannot actually have any authority to judge the actions of another; we are only responsible for controlling our own behavior.  The laws laid out are for us to govern ourselves, not others.  (It’s that nasty free will stuff again.)

More importantly though, the Bible has been invoked for centuries to justify the horrific treatment of our fellow humans.  It was the basis of the Crusades (Deuteronomy 13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.)  It was used to endorse slavery.  (Genesis 9:25, Cursed be Ca'naan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.)  It was employed in the fight against Women’s Suffrage (Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.)

These attitudes are horrific, and most Christians today rightly reject them. 

And yet, we still use the cloak of Religious Freedom as a means to engage in despicable behavior.  That is not its intent.  The First Amendment guarantees that there will not be a state sponsored religion.

The Wall of Separation, first defined by no less that Thomas Jefferson, states “government must be neutral among religions and non-religion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions.”  In other words, one religion cannot be promoted over any other.  To take an Evangelical belief that homosexuality is a sin over other religious views that accept it violates the Wall of Separation.

It seems that the religious right wants to enshrine their specific version of Christianity as the law of the land.  They do this while at the same time denouncing any possibility of Sharia Law being acknowledged.  Religious law is religious law; all of them are prohibited by the First Amendment.  Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, you cannot base American Law on any religious text.

But back to the specific issue at hand; the First Amendment is not acceptable grounds to refuse service.  This battle was fought in the sixties when segregation was finally excised from society.  In 1960, it would not have been news that a baker had refused to bake a cake for a mixed race couple.  In 2009, it was news when a county justice of the peace refused to marry a black man and a white woman.

We are fighting the same battles today, just with different victims.

It is OK that the Victoria Childress holds her views, that is her right.  She can believe whatever she wants to believe.   That is freedom of religion.

What is not right is to allow those personal beliefs to guide her in the refusal of providing the service she is in business to provide.  If she does not want to serve all customers equally, without discrimination, perhaps she should consider closing her business, so that she does not have to violate her beliefs.  That is also freedom of religion – to say that I’m not going to play.  It would be sad, but it would be her right.  And in point of fact, that was an option that many businesses invoked after the end of segregation, they closed their doors rather than being required to serve the African-American community.  (It's amazing what narrow mindedness will provoke.)

What is not freedom of religion is to invoke God as a “get out of jail free card” to justify discrimination.  Her religious freedom does not extend to discriminating against people engaging in a legal activity, which in Iowa, gay marriage is.

We would not permit it if the couple involved were of different races or religions, why is it OK to do so when they are the same sex?

It is time for us as an enlightened society to say enough – we are done with discrimination, no matter what the justification is.  We need to stand together.  We need to recognize that we all have different beliefs, and we need to stop imposing our own beliefs on others.

Especially when all the others are doing is committing an act of love.

Its All the Fault of Air Conditioning

Cool air

Recently my friend Patrick wrote a blog about what he terms “Southern Nice,” in which he defines a cultural artifact in the South where you wrap up your hatred of another in a cloak of false niceness.  He has gotten a lot of “Southern Nice” in response to the blog.

I cannot fully ascertain the validity of his concept, as I am not enculturated into the South, but I will say that it is the best working model of the behavior that I encounter on a day to day basis down here.  As with any scientific or cultural theory, I will therefore adhere to it until a better one comes along.  That said, I would like to deconstruct the possible origins of this phenomenon.

I blame air conditioning.

Let me explain the chain of reasoning.

First we will look at the evolution of emotional behavior, fear turns to anger, turns to hate.  Fear is the most primitive of emotions, followed by anger.  Hate is much more complex, but still speaks to our primal nature.  The chain, fear-anger-hate is a common one, so common that when Yoda tells Luke this, the entire audience can connect to what he is saying.  (If his thoughts had been abstract, and not part of the common collective knowledge, it would not have resonated.)

An example of this: let’s say you are a devout Fundamentalist Christian and you encounter a different interpretation of the Bible (perhaps one inspired by John Spong) which goes completely against what you believe to be True.  The natural reaction to this encounter is to fear: what if the other person is right?  What if I’m wrong?  The next step is to then become angry, angry that you have questions about something you feel you should have no questions about, then angry at the person who makes you question the unquestionable.  That anger then crystallizes into hate: you hate the person who made you ask a question that you feel should never be asked.  Hate becomes, in essence, the perfect armor against those who make you question your fundamental belief structure.

This pattern repeats over and over in human society.  The root of this chain is a lack of epistemology, which causes an inability to rationally asses a cultural challenge.  Lacking the solid epistemological groundwork to analyze the question and determine its validity, the person reverts to a root structural behavior.

Now onto “Southern Nice.”

The South is fully enculturated into a certain belief system, one of the most rigid belief systems I have ever encountered.  The reason for this is that for most of the existence of the United States, they have lived in a closed bubble – you were born in the South, lived in the South and died in the South.  You rarely left, and outsiders rarely came in.  (Unless they were burning cities to the ground)  This sort of isolation further reinforces cultural homogeneity and enculturation.

The South does things in ways that are completely different from, and holds beliefs that are utterly alien to, the rest of the country.  This was OK when they were an isolated, low population backwater.  It isn’t now, because of the huge influx of internal immigrants into the area.  (Which leads to the idea of transference, do the people in the south actually hate illegal aliens, or are they just transferring their hatred of internal immigrants into the one group they are culturally allowed to hate?)

The problem in the South arises when these new immigrants bring the non-Southern culture and value structure into the South.  They expect to have things like they are in the rest of the world.  (I certainly fall into this category, and it has caused me no end of difficulty here.)  The people not from the South have little tolerance for the racism, fundamentalism and general un-enlightenment of the people there.  They challenge the cultural belief system of the South.  The challenge increases cultural rigidity, because any system under threat reinforces the bulwarks.  Fear leads to anger then culminates in hate.

Thus “Southern Nice” is born.

So why do I blame air-conditioning for this?

Well until the invention of air-conditioning, no one not born to it could stand to live in the hot, humid and bug infested hell that is the Deep South.  People rarely even visited it.  The South was able to maintain it’s cultural isolation well into the 20^th century because of that fact.  They didn’t grow with the rest of the country.

This changed with air-conditioning.  Air-conditioning allowed people not born in the South to tolerate the climate here.  No longer were the mass populations confined to the Rust Belt, the area of the most tolerable year around climate in America.  Air-conditioning flipped the concept of a tolerable climate from a cool climate to a warm one.  There was a mass exodus from the North East to the South and Southwest.  In 1900 all of the largest cities in America were in the North-East Corridor, running from New York City to Chicago.  In 2011, only two of the largest cities are still in that corridor, the rest have moved to the Southern Tier.  It has been one of the largest internal migrations in history.

And with the migration came new ideas, new ways of doing things, new societal constructs.  The immigrants to the South brought a Northern Value Structure, which threw into question the entire culture of the South.  You had the Civil Rights movement, you had a new emphasis on critical thinking, you had new religions and traditions, you had new political values.  All of these brought new questions and new, challenging ideas.

And that launched the behavior chain.

If it had not been for air-conditioning, the South would have remained an isolated bubble on the fringes of the United States, but with it, the South became a major population center which caused cultural dislocation.  “Southern Nice,” is a cultural artifact that evolved as a response to that challenge of an entrenched belief system.

It’s amazing the spreading impact even from changing one technological variable.

"Hate your next door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace." Barry McGuire, Eve of Destruction