Losing What We Never Had: White Privilege and the Deferred Dreams of Black America, Part Three

Bill Quigley

25 Jul 2007

🖨️ Print Article

Losing What We Never Had: White Privilege and the Deferred
Dreams of Black America, Part Three

by BAR
contributing editor Dr. Edward Rhymes

"The phrase
reverse discrimination needs to be done away with."

RhymesAntiAffirmAct
This same
racial-scapegoating and demonization of Black folk in regard to welfare can
also be seen in attitudes towards affirmative action programs. The
term "affirmative action" was first introduced by President Kennedy
in 1961 as a method of redressing discrimination that had persisted in spite of
civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees. It was developed and enforced
for the first time by President Johnson. "This is the next and more
profound stage of the battle for civil rights," Johnson asserted. "We
seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as
a result." In the "discussion" regarding affirmative action, phrases and
words such as "quotas," "reverse discrimination" and "racial preferences" are
vehemently and venomously flung about. Here I would like to address what is
called affirmative action and what is not; what the dominant culture protests
and what they disregard.

I would like to first analyze the erroneous
notions that are often connected to affirmative action. To answer the charge
that affirmative action means quotas, one would have only to look to the
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke of 1978 (I will be addressing
more concerning this case further on) when the Supreme Court effectively barred quota systems in college admissions
(and thereby barred its use in other venues as well). So quotas are
dismissible because they are illegal. What is allowed under current affirmative
action instead are benchmarks, targets and goals. Goals and timetables are set
by employers for the employment of people of color and women, along with time
frames for achieving these goals. Employers are encouraged to make good faith
efforts but there are no legal penalties if they make good faith efforts and
are unable to meet the goals.

"Regarding affirmative action, phrases and words such as
‘quotas,' ‘reverse discrimination' and ‘racial preferences' are vehemently and
venomously flung about."

To the question of affirmative action as reverse
discrimination, let me begin by saying the phrase reverse discrimination itself
needs to be done away with. Discrimination is discrimination and the reverse
(or opposite) of discrimination is equity - the irony is that affirmative
action in its conception sought to redress the impact of discrimination.
Nevertheless, how can something be deemed reverse discrimination when White men
still hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs - and that's with
affirmative action programs in place; when 93 percent of all college
scholarship money goes to whites; when whites are more likely than members of
any other group - once again, even with affirmative action in place - to get
into their first-choice school. Additionally, in an analysis, the U.S. Department of Labor found that affirmative action
programs do not lead to widespread reverse discrimination claims. It also found
that a high proportion of claims that are filed are found to lack merit. These
findings firmly refute the charge that affirmative action has helped minorities
at the expense of whites.

Now, let's take a look at the "actual" racial preferences
that do indeed take place. For example, the Jennifer Gratz case versus the
University of Michigan in which she protested the 20 admission points awarded
to students of color. The University of Michigan has a 150-point evaluation scale
for admissions: Michigan awards twenty points to any student from a low-income
background, regardless of race. Since these points cannot be combined with
those for minority status (in other words poor Blacks don't get forty points),
in effect this is a preference for poor whites. Then Michigan awards sixteen
points to students who come from the Upper Peninsula of the state: a rural,
largely isolated, and almost completely white area. Ten points are awarded to
students who attended top-notch high schools, and another eight points are
given to students who took an especially demanding AP and Honors curriculum. According to Harvard's Civil Rights Project, Black
students are only half as likely as whites to be placed in Honors or AP English
or math classes and on average, schools serving mostly black and Latino
students offer only a third as many AP and honors courses as schools serving
mostly whites. As with points for those from the Upper Peninsula, these
preferences may be race-neutral in theory, but in practice they are anything
but, because of intense racial isolation (and Michigan's schools are the most
segregated in America for Blacks according to research by the Harvard Civil
Rights Project).

"In a society that is saturated in racism and white
privilege, even when policies appear to be race-neutral or color-blind, they
are not."

Four more points are awarded to students with a parent who
attended the U of M - RhymesStudentsProAffirmAct because of past discrimination this is overwhelmingly
white. So while Gratz and others focused on the mere 20 points allowed for
underrepresented ethnic groups, they ignored the combination of 58 points that
were overwhelmingly in favor of white applicants. Ironically and
hypocritically, the Gratz case also focused on the few dozen students of color,
with lower SAT's and grades who were admitted ahead of her, while disregarding,
altogether, the 1400 white students who were admitted who also had lower SAT's
and grades - and to their shame, the Supreme Court went for it. What has to be
understood is that in a society that is saturated in racism and white
privilege, even when policies appear
to be race-neutral or color-blind, they are not.

This same distorted view can be seen in the Bakke case as
well. Goodwin Liu in his essay
"The Causation Fallacy: Bakke and the Basic Arithmetic of Selective
Admissions," states that "in 1974, Bakke was one of 3,109 regular applicants to
the medical school. With the racial quota, the average likelihood of admission
for regular applicants was 2.7 percent (84 divided by 3,109). With no racial
quota, the average likelihood of admission would have been 3.2 percent (100
divided by 3,109). So the quota increased the average likelihood of rejection
from 96.8 percent to 97.3 percent." Liu goes on to further stress: "But even among
these highly qualified applicants, eliminating the racial quota would have
increased the average rate of admission from 16 percent (84 divided by 520) to
only 19 percent (100 divided by 520). Certainly a few more white applicants
would have been admitted were it not for affirmative action. But Bakke, upon
receiving his rejection letter, had no reason to believe he would have been
among the lucky few." Additionally, using 1989 data from a representative
sample of selective schools, former university presidents William Bowen and
Derek Bok showed in their 1998 book, The Shape of the River, that
eliminating racial preferences would have increased the likelihood of admission
for white undergraduate applicants from 25 percent to only 26.5 percent. So if
we rollback recognized affirmative action programs, while keeping in place the
unrecognized and unacknowledged "racial preference" that works heavily in favor
of whites we only perpetuate injustice. White preference remains hidden because
it is more subtle; more ingrained, and isn't called white preference or
privilege, even if that's the result.

There are other racial preferences to consider, such as
jobs, mortgages and car loans. A recent
Princeton University study of nearly 1,500 private employers in New York City,
titled "Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets," showed that Young White high
school graduates were about twice as likely to receive positive responses from
New York employers as equally qualified Black job seekers; ex-offenders face
serious barriers to employment; a criminal record reduced positive responses
from employers by about 35 percent for White applicants and 57 percent for
Black applicants. The most profound discriminatory practice revealed in this
study was that Black applicants without criminal records were no more likely to
get a job than White applicants just out of prison. Also on the job front,
another recent study revealed that dark-skinned African-Americans face a
distinct disadvantage when applying for jobs. The University of Georgia study found
skin tone more important than educational background for African-Americans
seeking jobs, even if they have resumes superior to lighter-skinned black
applicants. This research is believed to be the first significant study of
"colorism" in the American workplace. The evidence concluded a
light-skinned black male can have only a bachelor's degree and typical work
experience and still be preferred over a dark-skinned black male with an MBA
and past managerial positions, simply because expectations of the light-skinned
black male are much higher, and he didn't appear to be as 'menacing' as the
darker-skinned male applicant - so there appears to be a pecking order within
Black applicants, with the greatest plums being reserved who are positioned, in
terms of skin color, closer to whiteness.

"Black
applicants without criminal records were no more likely to get a job than White
applicants just out of prison."

Add this to the 2002
General Social Survey that found that 71 percent of the people polled
considered whites to be hardworking - just 37 percent thought the same about
blacks. About two in three people believed whites to be
"well-educated." Just a little over one in three believed the same
about blacks. Let us also consider the MIT-University of Chicago study that
sent resumes to employers who had help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston. Some
applicants were given "white" names, such as Greg; others were given
"black-sounding" names, such as Tyrone. The resumes with "white"
names got 50 percent more callbacks, and well-qualified Black applicants drew
no more calls than average Black applicants. Even the lower-skilled White
applicants got more callbacks than the highly skilled Blacks. It is interesting
that foreign-born workers in America (either legal citizens or those here on a
work visa) are not penalized for their East Indian, Nigerian or Japanese names.
On the contrary, their work has been sought and applauded by a great many
companies - even to the point where "highly-skilled" immigrant workers would
receive greater consideration than the "lower-skilled" laborers in the original
draft of the almost dead-in-the-water immigration legislation. How can we
continue to say that racism is a thing of the past? How can we continue to
deride affirmative action measures and turn a blind-eye and muted-voice to
these pressing discriminatory practices?

Another area of concern is automobile purchases and
financing. A 2003 Vanderbilt University study showed that Blacks were almost
three times as likely as Whites to be charged markups or loans financed by
General Motors Acceptance Corp. When charged a markup, Black borrowers paid an
average of $1229 in extra interest over the life of the loans, compared with
the average of $867 paid by Whites - the study covered more than 1.5 million
GMAC loans made between 1999 and April of 2003. The report found the
differences to be nationwide, although they varied greatly among states. The
biggest difference was in Wisconsin with Blacks paying 5 times more than
Whites, and California with Blacks paying 1.3 times more. The report further
showed that this discrimination was across the board regardless of the
profession and credit rating of the buyer or the model of the car purchased.
Another analysis of the most recent Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer
Finances data, completed on behalf of the Consumer Federation of America, found
that in 2004, African-American car buyers paid much higher loan rates on new
and used autos than white Americans.
On 2004 loans for new car purchases, blacks paid a median interest rate of 7
percent - compared with 5 percent for white borrowers and 5.5 percent for
Hispanic borrowers. On used car loans, African-Americans and Hispanics both
received considerably higher interest rates. The median rates for
African-Americans and Hispanics were 9.5 and 9 percent respectively, compared
with 7.5 percent for whites.

"For new
car loans, 6 percent of African-American borrowers paid 15 percent or more,
compared with just 1.7 percent for whites and 1.8 percent for Hispanics."

Additionally, CFA found that more African-Americans paid auto loan rates of at
least 15 percent. For new car loans, 6 percent of African-American borrowers
paid 15 percent or more, compared with just 1.7 percent for whites and 1.8 percent
for Hispanics. On used car loans, 27 percent of black borrowers and 18.5
percent of Hispanic borrowers paid 15 percent or more, compared with only 9.2
percent of white borrowers, the analysis found.

Now let us turn our attention to another "racial
preference": mortgage rates. A new report from the
Federal Reserve finds black and Hispanic home buyers pay more for their
mortgages than do whites. The analysis of 2005 home lending data found that
nearly 55 percent of black borrowers paid a higher interest rate on home
mortgages, up sharply from 32 percent the year before. More than 46 percent of
Hispanics paid more for their mortgages last year, more than double the number
reported in 2004.

In contrast, only 17 percent of whites paid higher interest on their home
mortgages last year. Still, that was nearly double the number reported for
2004. Moreover, The Center for Responsible Lending said either loan sellers are
charging higher rates to the minority customers or those borrowers are being
steered to loan sellers that specialize in higher rates.

Using an industry database, the Durham-based
nonprofit center compared credit scores, down payments and other financial
information on about 177,000 loans made in 2004 by "subprime" lenders
- companies that charge higher interest rates than banks. The lenders provided
the borrowers' income and race. The study found that blacks were 29 percent
more likely to pay a high interest rate on a fixed-rate home purchase loan. A
Hispanic borrower also was more likely to pay a high rate, it found. So when
these findings are coupled with the practice of redlining and predatory lending
it means economic devastation to many Blacks and people of color -
additionally, properties in predominantly Black neighborhoods appreciate at a
much lower value than those in predominantly White neighborhoods.

"The practice of redlining and predatory lending means
economic devastation to many Blacks and people of color."

Robert Westley in his essay, "Many Billions
Gone," wrote: "The practice of government-enforced and private ‘redlining' in
the home mortgage industry continued after 1950 through less blatant means than
the restrictive covenant, leading to the current urbanization and ghettoization
of Blacks, and the suburbanization and relative economic privileging of whites.
Based on discrimination in home mortgage approval rates, the projected
number of creditworthy Black home buyers, and the median white
housing-appreciation rate, it is estimated that the current generation of
Blacks will lose about $82 billion in equity due to institutional
discrimination. All things being equal, the next generation of Black homeowners
will lose $93 billion." Contrast Westley's hypothesis with the realization that
the baby-boomer generation of whites is currently in the process of
inheriting between $7-10 trillion in assets from their parents and grandparents
- property handed down by those who were able to accumulate assets at a time
when Blacks and other people of color by and large couldn't.

This detailed account of actual or real racial preferences
should make clear to those who both believe that the days of racial
discrimination are over and that past discriminations don't have any bearing on
this country in the here-and-now, that nothing could be farther from the truth.

Sadly, the voices of those who benefit the most from
affirmative action are by-and-large silent: white women. The unadulterated fact is that affirmative
action has helped whites more than people of color. Consider that gender is a
major component of affirmative action. As a result, no group has benefited more
than white women. And given that white women are more likely to be associated
with white families, one could reasonably argue that whites (as they are, for
the most part, the daughters, sisters and mothers of white men) have been the
main beneficiaries of affirmative action. Nevertheless, in 1996 when
Proposition 209 came before the people of California, 57% of White women voted
in favor of it - even though just the year before, the United States Labor Department confirmed that the primary
beneficiaries of affirmative action were indeed white women ("Reverse
Discrimination," 1995). It seems to me a betrayal of epic proportions that
after accumulating advantages as result of these programs, they now appear to
be at best ambivalent or at worst hostile towards them.

"No group has
benefited more than white women."

RhymesProAffirmActRally
Tim Wise, white antiracist author
and activist, in his essay "Is Sisterhood Conditional? White Women and the
Rollback of Affirmative Action," wondered: "Why would white women increasingly
come to view affirmative action in largely the same negative terms as the
‘angry white men' about whom the media has made such an issue in recent years?
Are white women thinking and voting more like white men on this issue because
they identify their interests as being largely tied to those of white men -
perhaps their husbands, or sons - and as such, are afraid affirmative action
might restrict opportunities for loved ones and family members (Ladowsky 1995)?
Is their ambivalence due to a false sense of efficacy and opportunity? Since
white women have made some impressive gains over the past 30 years, do they now
feel affirmative action is no longer needed (Burkett 1998)? Are white women essentially
identifying more with their perceived racial interest, than gender or
individual interest, and thus responding predictably to the ‘racialization' of
affirmative action in mainstream discourse? In other words, are white women
hostile to affirmative action largely because of their own racial prejudice
(Frankenberg 1993)? Or, was the failure to convince a majority of white women
to vote against 209 simply a failure of resource mobilization? Not enough
money? Not enough time? In other words, the message was right, the strategy
sound - to target white women and emphasize the gender aspect of affirmative
action - but the ‘good guys' were simply outgunned and outspent?"

The following statistics, to a great degree, can be traced
back to affirmative action initiatives. From 1972-1993:

The percentage of women architects increased from 3% to
nearly 19% of the total;

The percentage of women doctors more than doubled from 10%
to 22% of all doctors;

The percentage of women lawyers grew from 4% to 23% of the
national total;

The percentage of female engineers went from less than 1% to
nearly 9%;

The percentage of female chemists grew from 10% to 30% of
all chemists; and,

The percentage of female college faculty went from 28% to
42% of all faculty.

The majority of the women represented in these statistics
are white. The Department of Labor's statistics also estimated that 6 million women workers are in higher occupational
classifications today than they would have been without affirmative action
policies. I believe that it is also important to note that Black and Hispanic men,
on average, trail White women in earnings. So once again, why do most white women oppose affirmative action?
I believe, as Wise alluded to, it is because it has been racialized in the public
discourse. The critics of affirmative action characterize it as a Black
issue because this enables them to use the negative racial stereotypes
associated with Blacks to portray these policies as undeserved hand-outs to an
"underqualified and unmotivated" group of people.

The media is often complicit in these portrayals. In this
respect, the heavy participation of white women in these programs is obscured
by media portrayals which, for the most part, completely ignore the role of
affirmative action in promoting equality for women. Furthermore, because
affirmative action explicitly states that race can be one consideration (among
many others) most whites (and some people of color as well) ignore or reject
the more pervasive implicit truth
that whiteness plays an integral role in the acquisition of jobs, scholarships,
promotions, cars, houses and so on - more so than any group of people. The
absence of the word "white" does not connote an absence of its presence,
privilege or power.

"Whiteness plays an integral role in the acquisition of
jobs, scholarships, promotions, cars, houses and so on."

Wise, in his aforementioned piece, also goes on to show that
"ultimately, white women's views on affirmative action are hardly different
from their male counterparts, particularly when the issue is framed as one of preferences. According to National
Election Studies since 1986, white women are not substantially different from
white men when it comes to their feelings on this issue. Opposition to
‘preferential hiring and promotion' [grew] from 86% for white men and 79% for
white women in 1986, to 90% for white men and 88% for white women in 1994.
Similarly, opposition to admissions preferences in colleges [stood] at around
76% for white men and 70% for white women (Citrin 1996, 43)." This reality
played out in Washington (1998) with 51% of white women voting against
affirmative action and in the recent defeat of affirmative action programs in
Michigan with 59 percent of white women (82 percent
of non-white women voted against it) voting to
approve Proposal 2. The measure was approved 58 to 42 percent. A consequence of
this dynamic that I believe bears mentioning, is that women of color
(especially Black and Hispanic women) are not able to work with White women on
other issues of concern (sexism, misogyny etc.) when they perceive that the
vast majority of them are indifferent or antagonistic to the realities of
racial discrimination in their lives and to the mechanisms that they believe
would be instrumental in redressing those realities.

So let us recap the issues of affirmative action and "racial
preferences." Blacks and other people of color are the face of a program the
benefits white women more than any other group of people. Society ultimately
ignores the actual racial preferences that create more job and career
opportunities for whites - even to the point of white ex-cons having the same
shot at employment as Blacks who don't have a criminal record; the white
privilege that still allows white students (more than any other group) to get
into their college of first choice - while loading up on admission evaluation
points made possible by past discrimination and current educational and
economic inequities; as well as the racial and class preferences that got
President Bush into Yale and kept him
out of Vietnam. Additionally, while
Blacks ultimately will receive less pay
than their white counterparts (even with similar or better credentials and
experience) and inherit less (based
largely on past and current discriminatory practices), they will still pay more for automobiles and houses - houses
which will accrue less equity than
those owned by whites.

Now, in what world or society does this scenario make the
case for the end of affirmative action?

The Unkind 90's

Erik Eckholm, in an article for the New York Times
titled "Plight Deepens for Black Men," details the plight of Black males during
the economic boom of the 1990's (a boom that President Clinton and Senator
Hillary Clinton take great pride in):

The share of young black men without jobs has climbed
relentlessly, with only a slight pause during the economic peak of the late
1990's. In 2000, 65 percent of black male high school dropouts in their 20's
were jobless - that is, unable to find work, not seeking it or incarcerated. By
2004, the share had grown to 72 percent, compared with 34 percent of white and
19 percent of Hispanic dropouts. Even when high school graduates were included,
half of black men in their 20's were jobless in 2004, up from 46 percent in 2000.

Incarceration rates climbed in the 1990's and reached
historic highs in the past few years. In 1995, 16 percent of black men in their
20's who did not attend college were in jail or prison; by 2004, 21 percent
were incarcerated. By their mid-30's, 6 in 10 black men who had dropped out of
school had spent time in prison.

"By 2004, 50 percent of Black men in their 20's who
lacked a college education were unemployed."

In the inner cities, more than half of all black men do not
finish high school.

According to data compiled by Princeton sociologist Bruce
Western, the shift from factory jobs caused low and low-middle income workers
of all races to lose ground, but none more profoundly than Black males. By
2004, 50 percent of Black men in their 20's who lacked a college education were
unemployed, as were 72 percent of all high school dropouts. These numbers are
more than double the rate of white and Hispanic men.

Additionally, according to a
Northeastern University Center for Labor Market Studies 2002 study, "Left
Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation's
Out-of-School, Young Adult Populations," the School-to-Work Opportunities Act
of 1994 and the Youth Opportunity grant program were modestly funded and
short-lived responses. However, the sustained economic growth of the 1990s was
sufficient to increase employment and earnings among most of this population.
In an excerpt from the book, Left Behind: Less-Educated Young Black Men in the Economic Boom
of the 1990s, Ronald
B. Mincy states that "despite some erosion since the
2001 recession, the urgent need for special youth-targeted programs has been
undermined by reports of the gains during the 1990s, including a widely cited
study suggesting that the economic recovery would absorb less-educated young
black men - historically, the hardest-to reach-population - into the labor
market (Freeman and Rodgers 2000). After all, business cycles affect the
fortunes of most Americans, so, many observers assume that economic recovery
will once again lift the fortunes of young, less-educated men [writer's note:
this is the Clintonian version of trickle-down economics].

"But such optimism [was]
unwarranted. Less-educated young black men were left behind in the economic
boom of the 1990s. During the 1990s the employment rate of 16- to 24-year-old,
less-educated black men actually fell from its peak during the 1980s economic
expansion. What's more, their labor force participation rate continued the
decline that occurred throughout the 1980s. These findings question the wisdom
of a broad strategy for all less-educated youth and young adults, and suggest
that targeted approaches are needed to recover a subpopulation for which
sustained economic growth is apparently not enough."

From 1979 to 2001, the labor force participation of Black
males 16 to 24 shrunk from a little over 1 million to 898,000. This dramatic
drop in the economic fortunes and employment prospects was exacerbated by the
prison industrial complex as evidenced by the rapid growth in the number of
Black males who were incarcerated, on parole or probation.

In the 1990's we see the result of governmental indifference
and the complacency and apathy of too many in the Black community. As the
Clinton campaign machine is out-distancing all others in garnering Black votes,
is it truly in our best interest to have more of the same policies that
hampered and hindered Black men during her husband's much-heralded presidential
tenure?

The
Hurricane Holocaust

To properly contextualize the attitudes and perceptions
concerning Black folk (that existed long before Katrina) in the aftermath of
"The Hurricane," let us look to a statement made by former first-lady and
current first-mother, Barbara Bush: "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary,
is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the
hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena [the New Orleans Superdome]
here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working out well for
them." This clear and insensitive sleight against those who had experienced
incredible loss and devastation (as was detailed in Spike Lee's documentary
"When The Levees Broke"), there were some who had to line up their dead loved
ones outside the Superdome in the heat of the Louisiana sun.

There were many who believed the reports regarding
widespread lawlessness and mayhem in the days and weeks that followed Katrina -
such as gangs of Black men on the prowl for women to rape. It is important to
point out, however, that these reports have been debunked ad nauseum.
Who could forget the two AP photos showing hurricane victims wading through
waist and chest-high water in what appeared to be in the same location. Each
was carrying a loaf of bread from a nearby grocery store. However, in the
caption under the Black man we read the word "looting" while in the other
photo, the white woman was characterized as "finding" her goods. The Black folk
left behind and stranded by governmental incompetence and institutional racism,
were viewed not as American citizens devastated by a tragedy of epic
proportions, but as criminals, rapists, looters and ne'er-do-wells undeserving
of common human consideration or compassion. Community activist Leah Hodges
stated: "We left body bags behind... The people of New Orleans were stranded in a
flood and were allowed to die." New Orleans evacuee Patricia Thompson, adds,
"Yes it was an issue of race. Because of one thing: when the city had pretty
much been evacuated, the people that were left there mostly [were] Black."
According to a 2005 Gallup poll, six out of every 10 Black New Orleans
residents said if most of Katrina's victims were white, relief would have
arrived sooner.

"We left body bags behind... The people of New Orleans
were stranded in a flood and were allowed to die."

Over one million people with the means to leave fled before
the storm, but nearly 150,000 were left behind, trapped by poverty and
neglected by disaster plans. Those who gout out were mostly affluent and white.
Those left behind were not. They represented the poorest 15-20 percent of New
Orleans' population and were predominantly Black. And yet their deservedness of
rescue or consideration was assailed by political pundits and many in the
media. Does a doctor in an emergency room treat only the dying patients she
deems worthy of treatment? Nevertheless, the value of the lives of those left
behind, were being discussed and debated on television and radio talk shows.
While many in the country consumed the lies about rampant criminality, they
ignored the truth regarding the countless displays of heroism. It was the
ancient question about Christ reconfigured: "what good thing can come out of
New Orleans. Katrina should serve as a wake-up call to the still present
institutional and everyday racism; to the incompetence and cronyism of
government at all levels and most importantly, it should serve as a wake-up
call to a new Black self-determination.

The
Conclusion of the Whole Matter

It is ironic that the patriotic (both conservative and
progressive) don't view the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or
the Revolutionary and Civil Wars as historical curiosities divorced and
detached from where we find ourselves today. On the contrary, the significance
of those documents and events are invoked into the debate and dialogue
consistently in regard to current events. So what sort of collective and
selective amnesia has to take place in order for us to deny the equally
important role that racism has played in the shaping of America? For example,
politicians on both the left and the right, the fiscally-conservative and the
socially progressive, speak of "runaway spending" and how the government is
leaving a deficit that our children and grandchildren will have to pay - and
many people say amen to this. Yet, those same people will either ignore or deny
the historical and current debt and deficit of racism that has been piled on
this nation's oppressed that their children and grandchildren, past and
present, are now paying and will pay in generations to come. The institutional
and systemic racism that has limited economic and social opportunity for
millions of Black folk throughout the history of this nation, not only
determines where the current generation ends
up, but where the next one begins
as well.

"Those same people will either ignore or deny the
historical and current debt and deficit of racism."

RhymesAffirmActMontage

Thomas M. Shapiro in his book The Hidden Costs of Being
African American perfectly encapsulates the impetus for this series of
writings: "Because wealth sometimes represents
inequalities from the past, it not only is a measure of differences in
contemporary resources but also suggests inequalities that will play out in the
future. Looking at racial inequality through wealth changes our conception of
its nature and magnitude and of whether it is declining or increasing."
Additionally, the African Policy Forum's Focus on Affirmative Action website
presents the facts as thus:

$1.6 trillion: The estimated economic loss for African
Americans as a result of legal segregation for 1929-1969 (in 1983 dollars).

+ Several trillion dollars: The cost of discrimination from
the end of slavery in 1865 to the year 1969, the end of American style
apartheid, based on year-2000 dollars.

+ $94-123 billion: The estimate of how much Black workers
lose annually from continuing discrimination and informal segregation in
employment.

+ 100 billion: The estimated amount that Blacks in this
generation have lost in home equity as a result of the racial discrimination
they confront when they attempt to secure mortgages for homes and businesses =
$5 to $24 trillion: the sum total of the worth of all the Black labor stolen
through the means of slavery, segregation, and contemporary discrimination in
today's dollars.

To Black folk this must seem like an insurmountable task
that lies before us, and I understand. In light of the history and information
detailed here, who wouldn't? However, we can not be paralyzed by the real
obstacles we face or by the oppressive images that invade our mental skies. To
overcome this history it will take every ounce of will we possess. It will
require us taking risks that we dared not take before. It may necessitate a
collective discipline that goes beyond anything we have done previously. No
matter how dire the circumstances we face we MUST rise to the challenge - when
all is said and one, what is the alternative?

"We too, must be caretakers."

We are not to
blame for historical, institutional or systemic racism. However, we are responsible for our inactivity and
apathy. The vast majority of us may not be able to leave a large material
inheritance for our children in terms of dollars and cents, but we can leave a
legacy of striving in spite of obstacles, a bequest of perseverance. For that
is the inheritance that we ourselves have received and it is time we
corporately cash it in. Those who trod the road before us were caretakers of
the vision, not the vision itself - we too, must be caretakers.

Only a mentally and spiritually-liberated people can affect
the vast social and political realities that we face. A great deal of us were
convinced that we had "arrived;" we hailed the banishment of the signs of
"colored" and "white" (and rightly so), without eradicating the attitudes and
systems that produced them. Things such as the Civil Rights Act, the Brown
decision, the Montgomery bus boycott and so on, were signs pointing to the
destination of full equality, not the destination itself. I respect monuments,
but a movement is what is necessary. A movement as powerful and as deep as the
level of our frustrations; and a movement that realizes our highest and most
righteous aspirations.

As I stated in the introduction, there are many who will
view my critique and analysis as some sort of hate-filled rant against white
people or an exercise in "victim hood" - a phrase being used in greater
frequency among professed white progressives. The notion that one has to be
angry or bitter in order to discuss and deconstruct the history of American
racism and white privilege is, to me, bewildering and frustrating. Victimhood
has become the catch-phrase for any and everybody who challenges the mechanisms
and vehicles of historic and institutional racism. Like the signs "keep off the
grass" or "beware of dog," it is meant as a deterrent for any deep or
challenging discussion regarding race and racism in America.

"'Victimhood' has become the catch-phrase for any and
everybody who challenges the mechanisms and vehicles of historic and
institutional racism."

However, I am willing to address this erroneous assertion
and suspect reasoning. What is an injustice if not a moral, social (and
sometimes legal) crime? What components are necessary for a commission of
crime? A perpetrator and a victim
(whether real or property). When the woman who has been raped or the man who
has been assaulted details the crime in the form of a police report, they are
not reveling in "victimhood," they are merely stating what happened, how it
happened and who was involved. This is the case with those of us who continue to
insist that racism is the greatest unresolved moral dilemma of this nation. The
point of departure between those who don't believe that racism has much bearing
on our lives today and those of us who do (going back to my crime analogy) is
that they believe that the perpetrator has been apprehended; while we believe
that the assailant has yet to be, fully brought to justice.

Dr. Edward Rhymes can be
contacted at edwardrhymes@yahoo.com.

Do you need and appreciate Black Agenda Report articles? Please click on the DONATE icon, and help us out, if you can.

More Stories