I hope that this is true- the evolution of racial politics
 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628263723412543.html

Good question

when people get off of the idea that Al Jesse and Rev Wright (WTF?) are the only outlets for Black Thought when it comes to American politics...then we can progress...when those self same people realize that there are vast majority of other voices within the Black community (such as M.E. Dyson, Lewis Gordon, Dr. West and many others) that have the our concerns at heart then we can begin a dialogue but when all you can focus on is those 2 names (sorry but Wright doesn't count...) then there is nothing to talk about.

There's no doubt that these individuals (Wright/Sharpton/Jackson to a much lesser extent) make it easy for the uninformed to assume that they are, in fact, powerful voices for black Americans. Whether this is due to media overexposure, self-aggrandizing politicking or something somewhat more sinister, I'd guess it's something like 30000 times easier to find Al Sharpton on TV than Michael Eric Dyson, and this is a problem.

Now, sure, there's some onus on the uninformed to seek out the 'truth' - but when it comes to availability, work needs to be done in getting the proper voices to the forefront of the discussion.

Amen.

I would agree with you but in this day and age...TV is not your only outlet and some people are just not willing to let old habits and figures die...

Oh I agree that there will always be a segment of the population that will always only hear what they want to hear. But I think if we've learned anything in the last 7 days, it's likely that that portion is simply not that big anymore - since we can only expect people to put in so much effort, it seems pretty important to get the best voices to the forefront.

close to 60% of a certain population ;)

you are sooo correct. black or not, i dont relate to people like Jackson/Sharpton...they come out the woodwork and stoke fires as far as im concerned. anytime something negative happens to a black person, they pop up and irritate the situation...some black people take what they say as the 1000% truth and i hate that. they could show up at my house right now and i wouldnt care...they are NOT my spokespeople!

i absolutely love Michael Eric Dyson. he is positive, educational, and non-confrontational. more people need to be introduced to him and his body of work.

The larger point is that black people are not monolithic and don't need "spokespersons" for the sake of the white dominated media. The black activists, intellectuals, leaders, and other key figures in our communities have never needed to be categorized as such until whites were searching for a black leader. "Who will lead black people and speak for them?" Annoying sentiment.

The blacks who want Jackson and Sharpton to be their spokespersons have a right to want that, although I am not one of them and question how many blacks actually feel this way. The blacks who don't, have plenty of more viable alternatives. Blacks are a large enough community that we can multitask--don't let whites tell us that we have to choose.

As a lighthearted aside about how people tend to choose "their leaders/key figures":
There is also a distinction between how researchers and intellectuals like West and Dyson, and others who are huge in academia but don't want to achieve mainstream notoriety, speak to fellow academicians versus how they approach nonacademicians and "laypersons." They have been pretty good at reaching outside of academia and speaking to the sensibilities of people who won't read journal articles or certain books. This requires a level of watering down, positivity, and nonconfrontation because it is appealing to educated persons outside the discipline but also to lesser educated and sometimes more sensitive people who can get offended and turn away, whether people want to admit it or not, which loses the larger message. The more cut-throat approaches are often reserved for fellow academicians because of a common understanding of the nature of the beast. :)

Great post. Playing devil's advocate here I will say that I have met a lot of black people who do feel that they are being "held down" by institutional racism- how would you argue that they have a legitimate complaint here now that the most powerful man in the world- elected by a majority white population- is black?

The fact that whites are asking this question highlights the salience of institutional racism. It's like these whites were waiting for something to relieve them of guilt or allow them to dismiss generations of inequality in an instant.

We have a legitimate complaint because there are still huge disparities in this society that aren't just about "lazy minorities who don't have a go get 'em attitude." The existence of blacks who reach a certain level simply means that there are instances where some blacks are seen as exceptions**, where a greater interest is served by allowing color barriers to weaken momentarily, or to create an image of progressiveness. Similar to what happens with gender, social class, and sexual orientation even when sexism and patriarchy, classism, and heterosexism are pervasive.

** White folks were the ones going on and on about Obama being biracial, educated, articulate, and elitist. Many whites needed these things so they could see Obama as "not just any black person/not your typical black man/he doesn't make me nervous/I voted for the white half."

Thank you for posting this. I've been wanting to say it but couldn't figure out how where to put it legitimately without being flamed. As I saw white America embrace Obama and spoke to unlikely Obama supporters, I realized that they were making him white in their own minds. That's how many of them related. I can't imagine the backlash if Obama did something that his supporters perceived as a "black action" (whatever that means to them) or supported what they believed to be a "black cause." And, look how he quickly he distanced himself from Rev. Wright and his black liberation theology (which, for the record, I believe white America needs to hear and understand). He made it easy for people to see him as a friend, but many people don't see him as he is.

To the question,

I have my own question. Now that there is going to be a black man in office, will the decision-makers in the criminal justice/law enforcement system now all of the sudden decide that it is a little odd that black people are disproportionately represented in the system? I have other questions too.

For the Southern states, a waning grip on U.S. politics
 

For the Southern states, a waning grip on U.S. politics
VERNON, Alabama: Fear of the politician with the unusual name and look did not end with last Tuesday's vote in this rural red swatch where mounted buck heads and rifles hang on the wall. This corner of the Deep South still resonates with negative feelings about the race of President-elect Barack Obama.
What may have ended on Election Day, though, is the centrality of the South to national politics. By voting so emphatically for Senator John McCain over Obama — supporting him in some areas in even greater numbers than they did President George W. Bush — voters from Texas to South Carolina and Kentucky may have marginalized their region for some time to come, political experts say.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/...ca/11south.php

Your question is better because it speaks to reality. Most blacks aren't engaged in racial fantasies or concerned with things like reparations for slavery. But white people, in general, keep talking about that as if they have some imaginary inside scoop. It's an attempt to minimize structural and cultural factors, to the point where they become laughable and easily dismissed by those in decision making positions.

How, then, would you explain the huge support for affirmative action from blacks if they aren't trying to get reparations in that way?

fantASTic, go ahead and rethink that, edit, or whatever you need to do.

There's basic knowledge that people need if they wish to engage in these types of discussions.

What timing! An e-mail just came out over one of my sorority listservs about the efforts of our Alpha Chapter regarding the justice system. Here's a portion of that e-mail:

while the idea of reparations was a good idea at the time, it is unnecessary in this day and age. there are no slaves left that are owed anything. i have had white people mention them to me, however, and i was very amused...i think that some white people feel that blacks still need some sort of payment for our mistreatment back in the day, or else we will retaliate when we get to a position of power. lo and behold, Nov. 4th brought that level of thinking back into their minds, and its that fear that has brought out a very ugly side of racism that a lot of us only heard about from our parents...

I'm interested in understanding how affirmative action is even in the same category as reparations. fantASTic?

It's really interesting because these whites would deny that a white administration symbolized race-specific nationalism and white dominance to them. That's obvious since an administration with a black man at the head suddenly creates "fear of a black planet" and the threat that whites will lose their power position.

it amuses me that those whites dont realize that if a black leader (in this case, Obama) even THOUGHT in the wrong context, someone would be on him like white on rice. i really dont think there is anything to worry about with him in office as far as retaliation...

@ preciousjeni, you are correct. they arent even in the same category. reparations was a means of repayment. affirmative action forced a level of equality among hiring minorities.

It's scary because this really goes without saying. Presidents never have complete decision making capacity. A minority president in a majority administration and society won't be launching a take over. LOL.

I figured fantASTic was going to rethink her post to avoid a refresher course on affirmative action. I entertain questions on institutional racism because it is more abstract and complex than what we know about affirmative action policies and programs.

I would argue that the reasons behind this disparity have very little to do with "decision makers" in the criminal justice/law enforcement system (who I assume to be judges, lawmakers and police) - these decision makers have little control over educational or job opportunity, for example, two of the strongest correlating factors for finding oneself on the wrong side (rightly, wrongly or 'gray-area'-ly) of the legal system. The reasons behind the massive disparity on Death Row in Texas, for example, are much more complex than simply finding that black males get screwed by juries or judges - which is kind of ironic, as that's the classic mistake DSTC has been pointing out in this thread.

EDIT: I'm sure you realize all of this, and are more asking whether this is the opportunity for the "wake-up call" . . . my point is that whether or not it is, I'm not convinced it matters for that subset of the population. I'll go into more detail if you'd like, but I think that's a good start for feedback purposes.

This is all generally speaking, of course.

It is a classic mistake, which is why I wasn't talking about getting "screwed by juries and judges." Structural and systemic processes are much more complex than that. We're looking at outcomes without assuming the intent of the actors or arguing that it only happens at one level. They generally occur at every step, before and after arrest.

For instance, crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing disparities are not just about judges (or juries) intentionally handing out tougher sentences for lower class and minority offenders. Social class is correlated with race just as the types of drugs that people deal and use are correlated with race. That affects arrest, as well, with an understanding that minorities and poorer people are arrested for crack cocaine than powder cocaine. Correlates of race such as education, employment, and social class are no secret to these decision makers and disparities in outcome are factors of these. Decision makers simply respond by saying that crack cocaine was/is linked to a violent crack cocaine epidemic and that the psychotic effects of crack cocaine are different than powder cocaine---prior offense and other legal factors are also considered. Still, there are race, social class, education, etc...correlates of this that result in a certain outcome despite intent and justification.

Suffice it to say that when controlling for prior convictions and other legal factors, a lot of research consistently finds extralegal factors such as race and social class are not salient while other research still finds them to be salient. That debate aside, the substantive significance of extralegal factors is not contingent upon statistical significance if we're arguing that there are more embedded and less visible processes that lead to very clear outcomes.

I really like this example - I think it nicely covers both the breadth of the issue and the depth of the problem.

All of this sort of research is subject to so many assumptions that it wouldn't be too hard to meet a 95% confidence interval supporting whatever hypothesis you set out to prove - I will say that it doesn't pass a "smell test" for me to simply claim that the entirety of the disparity in sentencing between whites and blacks is based on socioeconomic factors, though, and I'm quite suspicious of research that claims that as its analysis.

The issue, then, becomes whether the 'best' way to approach the problem (again, hypothetically) requires addressing the underlying factors or the agents - to me, it seems that a top-down approach attacking the underlying factors will naturally lead to change in the agents, but a.) that's a decidedly long-term solution that may not be practical and b.) it's quite pie-in-the-sky. With those caveats and to get back to preciousjeni's question, I'll guess it's not too likely that many decision makers stand up and say "hey, we're on the wrong path here when it comes to the legal or criminal justice systems" - at least not immediately - and that this shouldn't be expected until there's more awareness of the underlying factors involved.

After controlling for other factors, socioeconomic factors may be found to be the most salient. However, any good research will acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis so none of these findings should be taken in isolation from one another.

Unfortunately, policies and programs are often based on literal interpretations of research findings and the effectiveness of the policies and programs are assumed rather than tested.

It isn't either/or to me. We need top-down and bottom-up approaches. It will take years to fully address disparities in factors like family attachment, education, and socioeconomic status. While we're working on that, we have too many poor people, minorities, and juvenile delinquents in the court and corrections systems without hope for rehabilitation or support mechanisms. This perpetuates a cycle of social disparity and violence that needs to be addressed. There's no point in improving education and other structural and cultural factors if there will be thousands of people released from facilities, and their family, who will have have difficulty adjusting to these improvements.

I am excited to be aware of the research on this and the outreach efforts that take a hands-on approach. There's a lot of stuff going on, even if the improvements are slow and seem to be falling on deaf ears.

Sounds like you are still blaming da man for your problems.

holla

Reason is simple....one pebble dropping in a pond may cause a ripple but not a tidal wave....It's alomst the same way like you have certain folks who have (insert race here) friends and they think that they are 'better in touch' than people who don't.

Just because there is a different president doesn't mean that we still won't have same problems...just the same as if Palin ever became president (God Forbid!) that women still won't have issues.

That's what I've been trying to say since Election Day.. it seems as if alot of people are saying "America has finally solved its race problems we have a black president" which is not the case. As you've said there will always be issues and people that are looking at this as a cure for all is sadly mistaken.

In this day and age, it's non-monetary reparations (except, of course, in the form of scholarships, in which case it IS monetary reparations). White students and black students go to the same schools, take the same tests and have the same opportunities. My black neighbor in high school had no disadvantages in society - his parents were both dentists, for Christ's sake. Yet, he got preferential admission over me. How is that NOT a form of reparation?

Even if you can possibly find a way to claim that he somehow deserved that, how is it that now POST-graduate schools are allowing this? Medical schools are giving preferential admission - sorry, but when a kid went to my same college, had the same classes, same professors, same EVERYTHING as me, she has no right to get preferential admittance, especially to such competitive areas as medical schools and graduate schools.

When all other factors are essentially equal, affirmative action is more of a reparation than an equalizer - what are you equalizing?

How is a scholarship a reparation?

..and that 2nd paragraph....starting to sound a lil' too whiny for my liking....

Deidre Royster's Race and the Invisible Hand speaks to this perfectly.

I predicted fantASTic's response perfectly and it's the exact same response whites who feel this way have used for 15-25 years. And every white person who uses it claims to know a black person with the same background as them, or an undeserving black person, who was given preferential admission over them. It's like the worst kind of urban legend EVER. :)

Yep. There are schools in the South that have a lot of students from the North. They notice this trend and seek to admit more students from the South. That's their take on diversity---regional diversity. These schools don't relax admission standards to accomplish this diversity. They recruit differently, have outreach programs, work on their financial aid opps, and offer scholarships that will attract more students from the South.

It's not equal opportunity if not all students receive the same opportunity, is it?

DSTChaos/Dr. Phil/ Queen of Sheba (;)): Can you explain why I'm wrong?

I'm not going to get into that. Research affirmative action and stop perpetuating urban legends. :p

Hey, at least I remembered all your names. Don't I even get one gold star for that? :)

Let me try asking again...how is a scholarship akin to reparations?

Because you're giving someone money because of their skin color and no other reason, and the only reason they're getting that is because of something that happened before I and my parents were born, as opposed to anything that actually happened to THAT person.