Discussion of Racism

[solicitr]

It would I think deepen and perpetuate racial divisions and resentment. And the reaction of white America afterwards would be, "The debt's paid, bub. So stop complaining."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What does what Wright has to say or doesn't have to say have to do with people be willing to accept what people can discover for themselves?

I guess I shouldn't have mentioned Wright in this thread then!

Certainly Wright's comments are relevant to a discussion regarding racism! And certainly many people might use his most outrageous statements as an excuse to dismiss the existence of real discrimination (not to mention worse things, like hate crimes) against African-Americans. But I stand by my assertion (harsh as it may be) that anyone who does dismiss the existence of such things does so not because of Wright's comments but rather because they don't want to face the truth of the existence of such things. I do want to clarify, however, that I am NOT intending to suggest that anyone posting here denies the existence of these things. But there are plenty of people who do, and some of them have latched on to Wright's worst comments to justify that belief.

[vison]

I doubt that any way could ever be found or attempted once found to make monetary "reparations" in this case. Yet, as Jnyusa pointed out, paying money is the way other issues are dealt with.

I doubt that "the debt could be paid". It is too long since it was incurred and the interest has piled up too high.

So what can be done? At the very least, the problem should be faced. I truly think the revelation that black Americans still seem to hold so much anger and resentment came as a big shock to a lot of white people.

When I say that "the sins of the fathers will be visited on the children" I don't mean that I believe that anyone inherits guilt. But having said that, the children of the victims inherited the suffering.

[Jnyusa]

The first notion of reparations for slavery came in the form of land. During the final months of the Civil War, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman marched victoriously through Georgia to the sea, nearly unopposed by Confederate forces. Thousands of freed slaves (called freedmen) accompanied Sherman's forces.

General Sherman, with the approval of the War Department, issued Special Field Order No. 15 on January 16, 1865. The order stated that "the islands of Charleston south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering St. Johns River, Florida are reserved and set apart for the settlement of Negroes now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States." Furthermore, Sherman's order specified freedmen would be offered assistance "to enable them to establish a peaceable agricultural settlement."

The land was divided into 40-acre tracts and Sherman distributed land titles to the head of each family of freedmen. He also ordered animals that were no longer useful to the military (mules and horses) to be distributed to each of the households. This is the origin of the phrase forty acres and a mule, which was promised to each freedman's family. By the summer of 1865, 40,000 freedmen had received 400,000 acres of abandoned Confederate land.

The Freedman's Bureau was established by Congress in March 1865 and one of its many functions was to supervise and manage all abandoned and confiscated land in the south and continue to assign tracts of land to former slaves. But the former owners of the land, who were pardoned after the war, began to pressure President Andrew Johnson. They wanted their land returned to them and were afraid that black landowners and farmers would start to accumulate wealth and power in the South.

On February 5, 1866, Congress defeated that portion of the Freedmen's Bureau Act that gave it the authority to assign land to former slaves. Then President Johnson ordered all land titles rescinded. The freedmen were forced off the land, and it was returned to the former white plantation owners.

Over the next few years, many plans were presented to Congress and the President in an effort to secure land for freedmen. One proposal suggested transporting former slaves out west where there was plenty of free land. The Homestead Act of 1862 gave 160 acres of land to each person or family, provided they stayed and worked the land for at least five years.

President Johnson vetoed every proposal that provided land to former slaves. Under the Southern Homestead Act, freedmen could purchase land at low prices, but few had any money after years of unpaid labor on the plantations.

Civil rights legislation was passed by Congress in 1866, 1871, and 1875, but none mentioned reparations for slavery, and few of the acts were enforced, especially in the South. At the turn of the century, several black organizations tried to gain support in Congress for pensions for former slaves and their families, but they were unsuccessful.

The Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965, and 1968 made considerable progress in the areas of school desegregation, voting rights, and prohibiting racial discrimination in employment, housing, and all public facilities. However, no mention of reparations for slavery was made in any of this legislation. In 1969, organizations such as the Black Panther Party, the Black Muslims, and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee demanded financial reparations for slavery.

Beginning in 1989 and every year since, Representative John Conyers of Michigan has introduced a bill in Congress to establish a commission to study the reparations issue and make recommendations. According to Conyers, the bill would "...acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery." The bill has never made it to the House floor.

There have been a number of economic studies addressing this issue.
But, that being quoted (from the NJ Bar Association website), I agree wholeheartedly with this sol:

Why cannot something of the sort be introduced today for the able-bodied? Our infrastructure is decaying, and a new CCC might be just the thing to both replace aging bridges and break the cycle of dependency.

We were talking in class just last week about about the $152 million stimulus package that Pres. Bush just signed, and I was thinking that they should instead take the industry hit hardest by the banking crisis - the construction industry - and create jobs rebuilding New Orleans. At least we'd have a city to show for it at the end.

Jn

[Frelga]

I think it has been very good for the Germans that they were able to pay reparations for the Holocaust. That is what has allowed subsequent generations to shed the guilt of their ancestors. They did everything that could be done to make right the consequences of that event, and it also removes any justification Jews might feel for hating Germans as a group rather than hating those who specifically committed the atrocities. And that is good for the Jews too.

If people keep bringing up Holocaust in this thread, and just when I'm digging up family history...

Well, actually, it is a rather good analogy, in that the issue is seen as clearcut and non-controversial, at least in our little community.

Yes, I agree, it was good for the Germans. It was, IMO, too little too late, but honestly, what else can people do? You can't bring the dead to life. You can't restore freedom to the dead.

It was good for my in-laws, who received about $3K IIRC. But may I point out that only the actual survivors were eligible for German reparations, and only if they could show some proof that they actually did lose some property. That's the point, really - the reparations were for destroyed property. Again, what else can you do? You can't replace people. You can't even replace the burned-down house that my grandparents found on their return to Ukraine.

Note, again, that if my ILs were not alive to receive the money, DH would not be entitled to a cent of it.

Rationally, I can say, the German people have accepted the communal responsibility and resolved to make whatever material reparations were still possible. I sincerely respect that, don't get me wrong. But money doesn't repair the real damage.

There's only one thing that can truly bring healing - constant vigilance, unceasing weeding out of any vile sprouts of Nazism, bigotry, racism, in any form. For me, the most healing moment in my feelings toward German people was when I saw a German co-worker vehemently cross out a swastika someone else drew as an illustration. (We had some strange talks in the office). That I could trust. That told me that things were different, that people were different.

Yeah, I think it's a pretty good parallel.

[solicitr]

A little more of James Cone and Black Liberation Theology:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community...

If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community...

Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy...

What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal...

Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love..."

[yovargas]

Link?

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Awful lot of snips in those quotes.

[Jnyusa]

So ... you think if Barak Obama becomes President then all them Black folk will be rampaging in the streets, looting and shooting, and screaming, "Kill Whitey!" and our god-fearing White women will be raped and defiled by Black demons? Hm?

I wondered how long it would take for that to be the secret message sent abroad by Republicans.

Well, let's have it out then. Let's hear just how scary Black people are. We know there's a lot of people who think it. Don't be shy to say what you really think.

Jn

[vison]

A little more of James Cone and Black Liberation Theology:

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community...

If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community...

Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy...

What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal...

Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love..."

And this has what, exactly, to do with Barack Obama? Is he saying this?

I could very quickly post equally hateful rhetoric from a white clergyman. What would be the point? We all know that there are extremists in every camp.

I have to say that once again I am as one with Jnyusa on this. I think her post needs to be answered.

I admit I feel a bit awkward discussing American racism - I don't mean to imply that I think Americans are MORE racist than Canadians. God knows we have racism issues of our own. But up here, at least where I live, the occasional black person is seen as exotic and exciting more often than not. So far, as far as I know, "race" is not a big issue in our politics. It might be in the future, though. Who can say?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is not the thread about Barack Obama. That is the other thread. This is the thread for discussing racism. I don't see any reason to assume that soli was saying anything about Obama with that post. If he was, he would have posted it in the other thread. Certainly discussing James Cone and Black Liberation Theology has a place in a discussion about racism.

That having been said, I question the value of posting random clips quotes from an unknown source, with no citation, and no way of telling how accurate the quotes are (or how "relevant" the parts left out are ). Most of all, I question the value of posting these clips with context or commentary. I can see why Jn and vison reacted the way they did. Since you make no effort at all to state what point you were trying to make by posting this information, they had no choice but to try to assume what point you were making.

[Faramond]

As a Republican, my secret message is "age before beautiful speaking". Oh sure, there will be some Republicans who try to stir up racial fears to defeat Obama. I hope McCain keeps as far from them as he can, but maybe the whole party is irredeemably corrupt.

Who is supposed to answer the question about how scary black people are? Republicans? White people? Anyone?

I don't think black people are scary. I think someone said earlier that black Americans are more likely to commit crimes, or something like that. I don't think that's true either, not if you adjust for income level and a lot of other things. I don't know if anyone will believe me, but that's my answer.

I read an article where the passage solicitr just quoted was featured. That bit of theology is so nutty that I strongly suspected it was made up or taken out of context. If it's real ... well ... why bother? I passed my personal sell-by date on discussing Reverend Wright about a week ago.

[vison]

I take your point, Voronwë, and will try to stay closer to the topic.

However.

I remember the first time I read anything by James Baldwin. I don't remember which of his books it was, but to say it was a revelation to me hardly touches the depth of my reaction. The feelings have stayed with me, although his life and times were certainly not mine. About as far from my life as is possible on earth.

Can any white person really understand racism? I wonder. Yet, I do believe that any "race" can be racist. I don't think that only white people can be racist.

But the reality is that in the USA and in Canada, white people have always been the power structure. White men, specifically, although of course women are not free of this fault.

I don't mean that black people should get a free pass on this. But the anger of black people over past injustices - over current injustices and conditions - does not mean racism to me! It may BE racism in the hearts of some, I know.

[Jnyusa]

As a Republican, my secret message is "age before beautiful speaking".

This is not about racism but about another thing that has made me angry as I've been listening to Bill Maher recently. He keeps hammering on about McCain's age and poking fun at him for being elderly. I REALLY dislike this because there's no indication whatsoever that McCain's age makes him unfit for the Presidency. Every joke starts with, "He's so old that ..." and I think that's plain discriminatory. It's also a kind of fear-mongering, just not as pointed as racial or gender fear-mongering.

Oh sure, there will be some Republicans who try to stir up racial fears to defeat Obama. I hope McCain keeps as far from them as he can, but maybe the whole party is irredeemably corrupt.

I hope McCain stays far away from them too. I fear there will be a lot of racially-based campaign messages if Obama wins the Dem nomination, Faramond, but it's not because the whole Republican party is irredeemably corrupt. These private political action committees do the heavy lifting these days when mud has to be slung about. But I think it will show the Republican stripe whether they simply fail to add their "I approve this message" at the end of such messages, or whether they actively disavow them.

Jn

[Maria]

McCain is old. If he wins, he will be 72 when he takes office, when the average life expectancy of a white male in the US is a tad less than 75. I will be taking a long look at whoever his running mate is when I finally decide who to vote for.

Their lack of a male version is one reason I don't already own it.

Try cafepress.com.

[halplm]

Hey everyone. I've tried to follow this discussion, but I've probably missed a lot. I don't know if I have much of a different perspective than what's been said, but I am not sure anyone has pointed out what I think the biggest fallout of Obama's speech is, which I will get to shortly.

When I moved to California, I lived in a very secluded part of the Santa Cruz mountains (Voronwë can back me up here, or correct me if I'm wrong ). There were almost NO black people up and down the valley. This is odd, but I'm sure not unique throughout the country. The thing that struck me as odd, was that outside of the area (for instance, at other high schools we competed against), some people considered anyone that lived there to be racist. I certainly didn't know any racists, or anyone that wouldn't welcome black people moving into the area. So how is such an impression developed?

Currently, I live in downtown Long Beach, California. Yes, I ran into Snoop Dogg in the grocery store last week (really). This is one of the most identifiably black areas in the country. Twenty-five blocks north is Compton, and I used to drive through Inglewood everyday. If anyone is familiar with the Bloods and the Crips, this is gang war central.

I fully admit, when I first moved here, I was a bit afraid. However, I was not afraid because there were a lot of black people... I was afraid because I was not familiar with the culture. I didn't know what it was like to live in the downtown area of a major city. Is that racism on my part? I believe a lot of people would say it was... and I believe most of them would be black.

However, I quickly got past all of that, and have lived here without problems for two years now.... with two notable exceptions that stick out in my mind. While working at the store I had here, a trio of young black men came in one day, obviously not really interested in buying anything... made fun of all the stuff we were selling... and then asked us if we were hiring, which we were not. When we said so, they started saying we were racist for not hiring black people. They were nasty about it, and once again, I would ask myself, why would their assumption be that we were racist? And even if they didn't really think it, why would they be so trained to say so to try and cause conflict?

The other incident was when I asked a guy to leave his backpack at the front of the store (which was our standard practice, and a common one in comic stores that I've frequented). As soon as I asked it of him, he gave a look of intense hatred, like I had just commited atrocities against his family or something. I don't know what he was thinking, but he walked out, and never came back in, so he apparently was insulted quite a bit. The only theory I could come up with that would inspire such hatred was that if he thought I was asking him to do that because he was black.

Two incidents in two years is not much, but they did stick out in my mind, and they both upset me a great deal, because the reactions and comments were completely unfounded.

So, anyway, back to the point. There is something in the black community that causes many black people to assume racism is the reason for things they don't like, even if that makes no sense. If a community has few black people, it means those people are racist, if a store (started by three friends and a brother) hasn't immediately hired black people, they're racist. If a white man asks a black man to follow a rule that applies to everyone, that white man is racist.

I'm going to step out on a limb and try to point out that George Bush is one of the least racist presidents we've ever had. He elevated black people to the highest postions in government that they've ever had, and not just as a token, but because he thought they were the best peopel for the job. He's spent more money on programs to help black people than any other president, because he's expanded them a ton (I don't have a citation, but who would report that?). And yet, he is reviled as the most evil racist person ever to be in power by the vast majority of black people. Why is this? Because they are told by their so called leadership... the Jesse jacksons, the Al Sharptons, the Pastors accross the country that say things like Wright.

I'm not saying all black people are racist. But the belief that all republicans are racist, or something like that is self-perpetuating. Parents teach their kids, it's reinforced by peers as they grow up, and black political figures pound it home in every speach.

And, until Obama made his speech on how we need to talk about this... we couldn't. The moment you ever said that Jesse Jackson was making devisive statements, you were labled as a racist that hated black people. It made no sense, but that's why no one has talked about it for a long time. People are so afraid of being labeled a racist, they won't even engage in the discussion. However, with Obama being the most successful Black man to run in an election, and with having him flat out say that those devisive statements were wrong, and that we need to talk about the issues that lead to such statements.

Well, now we can talk about it... and the Al Sharptons of the world can't claim people that want to talk about it are racist, because Obama said it was wrong. If they denounce him, as they have other successful black people that disagree with them, their arguments that it's all republicans and uncle toms fall apart, because they've embraced Obama, and he's a democrat.

So that's what I think the best possible outcome of Obama's speech is. The divisive politics that have been perpetuated in the black communities everywhere, from inside homes, to churches, to inner city schools, to political lobbiests... will lose power, and can be confronted for what they are... which IMHO, is what has been missing from healing rifts between races for some time now.

I apologize, as this got way longer than I expected, and I'm probably commenting on things you guys have moved past already...

[vison]

So that's what I think the best possible outcome of Obama's speech is. The divisive politics that have been perpetuated in the black communities everywhere, from inside homes, to churches, to inner city schools, to political lobbiests... will lose power, and can be confronted for what they are... which IMHO, is what has been missing from healing rifts between races for some time now.

You are partly right, halplm, and very much so.

But there are 2 sides to this equation: white people have to face up to the truth, too. The divisiveness is rooted in the memory of slavery, don't forget that. Slavery, and decades and decades of monstrous discrimination and violence.

If this speech isn't widely remembered as being a turning point in American history, I'll be surprised.

[halplm]

Reconciliation is rooted in forgiveness, not in resentment.

If a person believes they will be discriminated against through their entire life, they will see it everywhere even if it doesn't exist.

(I'm not saying it doesn't, just that people will see more than their really is)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

hal, thanks for your thoughtful post. You make some good points, and also say some things that I disagree with. But I appreciate the honesty that you show.

You will be interested to learn that in your old town, Boulder Creek, there was a series of racially motivated hate crimes a couple of years ago directed at African-Americans that had "invaded" that heretofore almost exclusively white town (Here is a brief article about one of them.] As long as these type of things continue to be endemic throughout the country (and as you know, hal, Santa Cruz County is one of the most "liberal" places around), the anger and hostility is going to continue to fester in the black community. Yes, there needs to be reconcilation and forgiveness, and much work needs to be done to educate the black community about the progress that has been made. But there still is a lot more progress that needs to be made in eradicating all traces of the hate and disdain directed at people of African descent by white America.

[nerdanel]

My perception, as a non-white non-black, is that:

1. African-Americans are somewhat more likely to see discrimination where the true reason for a white person's conduct is neutral/innocent.

2. White people are somewhat less likely to see discrimination where the true reason for a white person's conduct is insidious/racist.

The unfortunate consequences of these observations (to the extent they are correct), are:

1. If a white person is accused of racism by a black person when he was intending something innocent and racially neutral (e.g. please leave your bag at the front of my store because that's what I expect of all my customers), the white person may be more likely to take serious allegations of racism by blacks less seriously.

2. If, on the other hand, a black person is racially profiled (e.g. their bags are screened and they are treated with suspicion by a department store security guard, while white customers are allowed to exit the store unscrutinized), she may be less likely to credit a white person's assurances that he applies his anti-shoplifting rules in a racially neutral fashion.

And so the cycle continues.