Sunday, August 02, 2015

Is radical leftism a trap for minorities?


I was struck by Cornell West's negative reaction to Ta-Nehisi Coates' new book, Between the World and Me. This line in particular caught my attention:
Coates can grow and mature, but without an analysis of capitalist wealth inequality, gender domination, homophobic degradation, Imperial occupation (all concrete forms of plunder) and collective fightback (not just personal struggle) Coates will remain a mere darling of White and Black Neo-liberals, paralyzed by their Obama worship[.]
I've seen a bit of this idea among humanities folks before - the idea that the only way that racial minorities will win true freedom is with a revolution that overthrows capitalism.

I kind of think that this idea is a trap that helps keep minorities down.

First of all, I agree with Jamelle Bouie that racial disparities in America - and everywhere, really - are about a lot more than class. Attempts to define the struggle of black people for social equality as simply one more case of the eternal Marxian struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist overclass fundamentally miss a lot of the important reasons why black people struggle in America. It's not just because they're poor and capitalism hurts the poor. (This is also the glum conclusion of the protagonist in the novel Invisible Man, who joins a communist-type organization called the Brotherhood, only to realize that racism can't really be understood through the lens of class conflict.)

But also, taking a historical perspective, I doubt that the strategy of anti-capitalism will do anything to help minorities. The example I'm thinking of is my own ancestors: Jews in Europe. Now, Jews were not a racial minority per se, but in an age when religion was mostly inherited, they were somewhat similar to one. European Jews were persecuted for millennia - regularly attacked and massacred, excluded from many types of economic of activity, kept from holding political power, etc.

European Jews mostly responded to this with nonviolence. Instead of defending themselves from regular attacks, they routinely fled. Instead of trying to overthrow the government, they isolated themselves in secluded communities. Instead of trying to redistribute wealth to themselves by militant force, they engaged in commerce, attempting to get rich in industries like baking and jewelry.

This approach - an early version of what you might call a "model minority" strategy - seems not to have worked very well, at least for a long time. Many Jews got rich - so much so that Jews developed a stereotype as being wealthy - but the massacres and exclusion continued in many places.

Some European Jews took a different tack at the beginning of the modern age. They signed on to the new international communist/socialist movement that was sweeping the continent. Some Jews, like Marx, even helped define the movement. Eventually, this movement turned into violent anti-imperialist revolution in Russia. Many Jews, like Leon Trotsky, joined the Russian Revolution and helped successfully overthrow imperialism.

Unfortunately, this didn't really work either. Jews continued to suffer extreme and often violent discrimination and exclusion in the Soviet Union. The leftist gambit failed - it turned out that social inequality was about a lot more than the imperialist system. It seems pretty clear that a similar thing would happen with black people in America if we ever experienced our own version of the Russian Revolution. Cornell West's anti-capitalist "fightback" would be a disaster for black people.

So what did eventually work for Jews? Moving to tolerant societies. In the Netherlands and England, discrimination still existed, but there were no massacres. Eventually, as societies became richer and more democratic, even social exclusion was reduced. Britain even had a Jewish prime minister - Benjamin Disraeli. In the modern day, many Jews moved to the United States, where anti-semitism was never more severe than the various other frictions between ethnic and religious groups.

And within these tolerant societies, Jews (mostly) didn't try to overthrow capitalism - they worked within the system, doing essentially the same thing they had done in medieval Europe. But with the advent of modern capitalism, this strategy bore a lot more fruit than before. Jews have, overall, flourished economically in the U.S. without suffering the discrimination and violence that used to accompany it.

Obviously, direct application of the "model minority" solution is not going to work for African Americans, since this country for historical reasons has entrenched discrimination against black people in a way that it doesn't have against Jews (or Asians, or Hispanics, or Italians, etc.).

But anti-capitalist revolt is not going to work either. It's a seductive mirage that will only destroy those who chase after it. Capitalism isn't a cuddly, friendly system, but its destruction tends to lead to things far more baleful.

Leftism, as a philosophy and worldview, has suffered enormous setbacks in the past few decades, because communist countries both A) collapsed, and B) were revealed as being nightmarish to live in. A natural strategy for proponents of hardcore leftism - at least, those who choose not to do the sensible thing and moderate their views - would seem to be to try to co-opt oppressed racial minorities, telling them that their social exclusion is due to capitalism.

But ultimately, hopping on the radical leftist boat will hurt minorities. And I suspect that leftists in the humanities are doing minorities no favors by trying to convince them that radical leftism is their only hope, when in fact it is a self-defeating strategy.

So what will work? If history is any guide, the only option is to increase tolerance. I don't pretend to know how to increase tolerance. For immigrant groups, it seems to naturally fade over time, especially if those groups 1) organize to fight discriminatory policy, and 2) make a bunch of money. For African-Americans, intolerance seems much more entrenched. I don't pretend to know how to get rid of it, but I am pretty sure that a militant overthrow of capitalism would make things much, much worse.

60 comments:

  1. I have a potentially stupid question - why aren't African-Americans moving in masse to Canada or Western Europe? Especially to countries/areas with free education and healthcare with no entrenched racism against them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Western Europe is more tolerant than here, but the Canada question is fair. Or Australia, or New Zealand...

      Delete
    2. Interestingly there was already a Great Migration to the Northern and Western US cities, but I have to wonder - why didn't a big number cross the Detroit river?

      I don't want to start ranking countries, but my point is that there aren't many African-Americans in say Austria - they might be OK with a large number of bigots used to hating say Muslims or Serbs.

      Delete
    3. I bet lots of black people assume they'd be equally excluded everywhere, but in other places they wouldn't have safety in numbers.

      Delete
    4. Right now Gypsies are migrating from South-Eastern Europe into Western Europe even though they face discrimination and have fewer support structures in the areas. Simply because it is worth it economically - more jobs, better social services.

      Maybe black people simply don't have the income incentives to emigrate other groups had in the past. They already live in one of the richest countries in the world.

      Another thing is AA might have been used to homeownership. In Europe is rarer and immigrants rent, I'm not sure about Canada.

      Delete
    5. Well,I would suppose part of it is that you need the means to emigrate, and as a downtrodden class, that may have been out of reach. (Though no telling what was in the holds of all those immigrant ships on their return trips.

      Some noteable AA artists and intellectuals did make the trip, like Richard Wright lighting for the territory...to France.

      Delete
    6. As far as I understand, emigrating is quite expensive and difficult for at least two reasons. First, Canada and Western Europe do not have radically different emigration policies than the US, so without skilled employment, relatives, or some other such exceptional circumstance, getting permits is probably difficult to impossible. Second, the cost of moving itself, not to mention the risk of unemployment, is likely outright prohibitive for any family or individual living in poverty; and dicey for the lower 50% of the population by material wealth, which is where the majority of the black population is.

      It might help to ask why emigration to the US was relatively easier for European Jews

      Delete
    7. The big difference is that Europe is much more racist than the US.

      Delete
    8. African Americans are more concerned about finding a way to get 10 miles across town to a job interview than they ever could be about moving en masse to another country...likewise, the idea that radical leftism is a trap for them is only an idea in the minds of white elitstist like Noah....blacks in American cities have no time for theories; they're just trying to make ends meet...most dont even know who Cornell West is...

      Delete
    9. One reason is: those countries do not let in enough immigrants. You have to fill out forms and stand in line. Another is most blacks like being USAers. They are mostly doing fine here.

      Delete
  2. I disagree with this post. First there is a silly straw man argument. West isn't arguing for a "militant overthrow of capitalism." He's arguing for social democrat reforms. He's also criticizing Coates for not focusing on all of those other things. I don't know if that's a fair criticism, not having read the book. My guess is that he wouldn't disagree that much with West and perhaps West isn't being nice because Coates hasn't paid him homage.

    I believe social democratic economic have helped with tolerance. The more prosperous American became after World War II, the more tolerant it became. Jews could join country clubs. Women could get credit cards, etc. Maybe the reforms weren't "anti-capitalist" but they were social democratic in economic terms. It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both: the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act.

    This seems basic to me. When did Germany really go insane and viciously scapegoat the Jews and others? After it's economy went down the toilet. Now that Europe is struggling again, anti-immigrant groups are growing in popularity again.

    I guess what's unclear is what is meant by "anti-capitalist." I'm sure for West it means a fairer, prosperous society as it does for many on the Left.

    On the right they say they want a free, prosperous society - and no doubt some do, but the their "pro-capitalist" policies don't lead in that direction.

    For the past 40 years, the right and neoliberals have been enacting their "pro Capitalist" policies and we see the results. Stagnating wages, slowing growth and increasing inequality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I want to stress that this doesn't mean I agree with West's criticisms of Coats. As Dyson points out - and Dyson had a falling out with West - Coates writes about reparations which are economic.

      This seems to be a lot about criticisms of Obama. Many on the left are critical of Obama as West is, so he's not alone there. He seems to be criticizing Coates by saying Coates is being embraced because he isn't critical of Obama. I don't know if this is fair or true.

      West is saying that James Baldwin would be critical of Obama, unlike Coates who many like Morrison describe as Baldwin's heir. I don't know if it's true but it could be.

      Delete
    2. Social democratic policies do not help with tolerance at all. They promote ethnic hatred and exclusion based on political competition for resources through identity politics. Just look at modern Europe and how "successfully" it integrates immigrants (especially those of different color).
      Actually, you don't have to look for example across the ocean. Just look how the New Deal was built: through exclusion of blacks.

      Delete
    3. And your alternative? Actually, nevermind.

      Delete
    4. Open system with as few barriers to competition as possible.

      Delete
    5. Oh, like Dubai? Where minorities are treated with perfect and permanent quality?

      Delete
  3. Hmmmm. I am going to make myself look really bad here, but I think you overstated the case here for how overthrowing capitalism simply does not help minorities at all. Obviously the Soviet and other communist regimes had the problems you mention, and it is also true that in most of them, discrimination against minorities tended to continue, at times bursting out in ugly manners.

    That said, there is substantial evidence, sorry, I am not providing cites at the moment, but can if somebody really wants to make a fuss about this, that at least for periods of time minorities got treated somewhat better, if not perfectly or ideally, in revolutionary socialist regimes. Stalin did save the Jews from Hitler, more than anybody else did. Some studies show that in eastern Europe during the period Stalin ruled the USSR, the Stalinist regimes there engaged in less discrimination against women as well as Jews and also gypsies, with backsliding occurring as these regimes "liberalized" later. I note that this literature is not well known and gets little reporting now in say the US for obvious reasons, but indeed, serious data is there.

    To take another example, blacks probably did better off relatively to whites in Cuba in the years following Castro's takeover, although it is my understanding that there has been a drift back to bad old practices and attitudes there.

    So, your strong post may need just a bit of caveating, Noah (and, please, do not make me go dredge up sources as I have too much work to do right now, but a book by the late Lynn Turgeon has the data on patterns of discrimination against gypsies over time in eastern Europe, and they did their best during the high Stalinist period).

    Barkley Rosser

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW, they may have provided a false answer, but it is probably the case that the one heroic and good thing that the Communist Party of the USA ever did was that during the 1920s they were the only non-black political group that substantially supported civil rights for African-Americans. That quite a few blacks were among those who moved to the Soviet Union during the 1930s, is really quite understandable, even if most of them came to regret having done so.

      Delete
    2. Excellent point about the Communist Party which shows Smith's lack of historical knowledge. Mandela and the ANC's biggest supporters in apartheid South Africa was the Communist Party. Cornel West knows this, as did Dick Cheney when he called Mandela a terrorist.

      Delete
    3. Well, along with all the South African stuff, there is the minor matter of some of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s closest associates being former CPUSA members, I mean, card-carrying ones. Now, those were later days, and lots of those more idealistic and worthy commies had left the party as more and more of Stalin's crimes became clear. But, indeed the Soviets did continue to officially support the US civil rights movement, and while it is generally considered to be a laughable example of how out of it and racist he was, old J. Edgar Hoover's obsession with "commies around King" was not completely ridiculous, although he should have eased up when it became clear that they were all EX-CPers.

      Delete
    4. The points about Stalin, if true, don't imply that communism improves the treatment of minorities. It shows that "minorities" is a cultural term that can be flexibly wielded for the same reasons that anyone in power seeks to draw lines. Is "black" a more precise and fundamental minority than "intelligentsia" or "kadets"? Viewed from this framework, the claimed increase in anti-semitic sentiment, post-Stalin, has less to do with liberalization, and more about the changing whims of the powerful in a system that gives average people trivial recourse.

      If you let me control the minority narrative, I could make Iran look like a post-revolution improvement. It's just a matter of inflexibly focusing on categories with improved metrics, and placing blinders on everything else.

      Delete
    5. Stalinist regime, unlike the earlier Leninist one, which had genuine tolerant/open elements, was built on violent and mass suppression of ethnic identities and an attempt to built the social support for the regime through Russian imperialism.

      Delete
    6. I will anxiously wait for that evidence of the supposed enlightened treatment of minorities under communist regimes. Especially when you realize that at the moment of Stalin´s death, a purge of supposedly treasonous doctors (mainly jewish) was on its way to become a full scale pogrom. So much for the jew´s best friend in WWII.

      Similarly, the Cuban Communist Leadership under the Castro brothers has proven to be, apart from deeply homophobic, highly racist regarding the population of black and mulatto ancestry.

      Delete
    7. Actually, saying mass suppression is just way too weak. The Stalinist regime specialized in genocidal violence against several ethnic groups: including Ukrainians, Poles, Tatars, Chechens and others.

      Delete
    8. Of course you are right, Krzyz. Things were better under Lenin than under Stalin for ethnic minorities.

      My argument was that there is generally the best treatment of minorities in the earliest years of a revolutionary socialist regime, which is consistent with that. Aside from my remark about Stalin saving the Jews from Hitler and supporting the civil rights movement in the US, I specifically noted policies in eastern European regimes, where discrimination against gypsies and other groups was at its lowest apparently in their first years under the rule of Communist Party governments, which was right after WW II, when Stalin was still ruling the USSR, and the leaders in these nations were in general following Stalinist policies in economics and other areas.

      Delete
    9. Oh, and Jorge, do you disagree with me that the moment of least discrimination against African-descended people in Cuba was in the immediate aftermath by Castro, with the situation worsening over time to what you describe as going on now? Do you want to claim that blacks had it better under Batista? Really?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous12:18 AM

      uh Rosser, maybe that's because it is strategically optimal to support formerly suppressed minorities in the early stage of a "Revolution" because that's where most of the potential for radical overthrow is? And once the "revolutionary leader" has exploited all this potential he/she can just go back suppressing these groups? You may want to read Acemoglu's work on that. It is really not difficult to write down a model of political power that can generate these kinds of dynamics.

      Delete
    11. Gosh, uuuuuh, "Anonymous," you are so damned brilliant. I never had any idea about this ever before. And thanks for bringing to my attention this guy, Acemoglu. I had never heard of him before! It is amazing the brilliance of some of the commentators on Noah's blog, especially the Anonymous ones. How can I ever thank you enough, Anonymous?

      Delete
    12. Something along the lines of "pre-revolution" the actions can be democratic and inclusive, but post-revolution, they lean back to dictocratic and exploitive. Though the sort of counter example is Nazi Germany which started out anti-minority.. actually building themselves up on it.. though the label sort of applies as a counter example because they were even worse late regime in comparison to early regime.

      Delete
    13. I don't know much about Batista's administration of Cuba, but I do know he was himself a couple generations removed from slavery. I would not have assumed a priori that replacing a mixed-race former fieldworker with a couple of white lawyer brothers would benefit Afro-Cubans.

      Delete
    14. "Stalin did save the Jews from Hitler, more than anybody else did. " - yes, but come on, he did this only as a side effect of trying to save his own skin. I don't think he should get credit here or that this proves anything.

      With regard to Roma it's a bit more complicated. Depends where, when and how. Romania was a particular case of course but that's not really Stalin. Within Russia there were massive repressions against Roma under Stalin. In the satellite countries which fell under Soviet control the Roma were at the very least forced to "settle down"; their traditional way of life was criminalized. And the "People's Republic's" governments, being much more centralized then their predecessors, were quite effective at this, the "Gypsy way of life" completely disappeared because it was incompatible with principles of Marxism-Lenninism, swept aside by history.

      It's also worth remembering that unlike the case with anti-semitism, putting aside Romania, the Roma were actually treated much better in "Eastern and Central Europe", including Russia, than in, say, Germany (where German princesses would organize "Gypsy hunting parties" and such, as late as late 19th century). That's actually what accounts for the large influx of Roma into this area over the course of 19th century.

      Delete
  4. I believe social democratic economic have helped with tolerance...

    Only among the already-comfortable. Sure. Guilford isn't the UKIP's heartland.
    Dahlem isn't a PEGIDA stronghold.

    Working-class Thatcherism suggests it is otherwise with the un-comforted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reguarding Guilford, Dahlem, UKIP and PEGIDA, that's not what I'm talking about.

      I am talking about rising living standards and financial security. I am not talking about social democracy versus a more militant anti-capitalism.

      I'm talking about actual economic and political reforms which brought about actual prosperity. Those are arguably anti-capitalist and/or social democratic depending on your definitions.

      In other words the reforms aren't reaching the "un-comforted" or rather reforms have been rolled back and so that there are more un-comforted than there used to be. That's my point about Nazi Germany. They weren't rounding up Jews until unemployment skyrocketed and remained high for years. They needed scapegoats.

      Delete
  5. Here's some homework for Noah.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Slovo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The two most significant white figures in the South African anti-apartheid movements were Joe Slovo (SACP) and Ronnie Kasrils (ANC).

      Both communists and, for good measure, both Jews.

      Those trying to overthrow capitalism (or tame it) are pretty reliable allies in the fight against racism, even if they have failed to win that fight.

      Delete
  6. But there ain't no war but the class war, Comrade.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6:38 PM

    Coates can grow and mature, but without an analysis of capitalist wealth inequality, gender domination, homophobic degradation, Imperial occupation (all concrete forms of plunder) and collective fightback (not just personal struggle) Coates will remain a mere darling of White and Black Neo-liberals, paralyzed by their Obama worship[.]

    I don't think West is actually arguing for a violent overthrow of capitalism here. I actually don't think he is saying anything at all. Just a string of academic leftist buzzwords that might sound cool. It's really pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous6:59 PM

    "the only option is to increase tolerance. I don't pretend to know how to increase tolerance.'

    Sorry Noah, but tolerance is such a terrible notion - just more of the same.

    Here's an interview of Coates with Australian radio:

    http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2015/07/lnl_20150721_2220.mp3

    He is deeply and bitterly skeptical that the situation for Black Americans will change in his life time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:01 PM

      Should have signed post by Henry

      Delete
    2. Anonymous7:17 PM

      I used the word "bitterly" - not so sure about that - his mood is more one of resignation - in many ways eminently more debilitating. Given he is taking his family off to France, it sounds like he has given up on America. His book is written as a letter to his son - perhaps its his justification to his son for removing his family from America.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:32 PM

      "Is radical leftism a trap for minorities?"

      In the interview, Coates talks about Malcolm X. He says Malcolm X was wedded to the use of physical power. Coates however, I would say, would believe the expression of physical power by Blacks would be brutally put down. So there's no way out. Hence his resignation.

      Henry

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:46 PM

      Coates also sounds like a man who is completely demoralized, demoralized by a nation that treats a large section of its population abominably yet professes in its founding declarations great things.

      West may well be right about Coates in some ways. West's calls to radicalism would not resonate well with Coates given Coates seems to have decided America is beyond redemption.

      Henry

      Delete
  9. His name is Cornel, not Cornell.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous10:18 PM

    Is radical leftism a trap for minorities?

    A more interesting question might be: are minorities a trap for leftism, especially in Europe?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Radical leftism was a kind of trap, to some extent set deliberately, back in the 60s to mid 80s. By now it's a mere escapist fantasy.

    This isn't about radical leftism, though. Coates is actually pretty far left, and has written about most of the things West accused him of avoiding. This is all about whether a leftist Black intellectual is or isn't obligated to denounce Obama.

    But anyway, interesting to see the Soviet apologists flushed out. Sure guys, Lenin meant well. Overseeing the deaths of millions and bringing Stalin to power were mere unfortunate accidents, which as soon as he had lost his mind enough to not be able to write, he must surely have regretted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Back in the 60s to mid-80s you say, TW? Yeah, at that first SDS meeting in Port Huron, there was a special side meeting where the leaders secretly agreed to deliberately set a trap to con all the blacks. It was just amazing how brilliant and yet awful it was, given how many poor naive suckers they conned.

      It was far more brilliant and successful and sneaky than Stalin's just dumb luck at appealing to them early in the 20th century, which had no deliberation about it at all. All the Soviet apologists needed to see this brilliant analysis by you in order to know this.

      Delete
    2. So Mandela was a Soviet apologist? You need to go back and do your homework before you lecture us.

      Delete
  12. I guess you take the forced expulsions and ghettos to be fleeing and exclusion? Also, Jews (especially in Eastern Europe) had very strong socialist organizations, many of which fought alongside the Bolsheviks and later the Soviets. Even Israel had the support of the USSR during its first several years of independence.

    Additionally, Black and Jewish civil rights organizations in the US (in addition to those of other marginalized groups) were allied with communist parties and anarchist organizations from reconstruction until those ties were withered by the threat of McCarthyism. Allied with the communists, these organizations were far more effective at leveraging their threat not just as a popular force, but also as a revolutionary force, to exact concessions from the state, bosses, and landlords.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous5:52 AM

    You're clear about what African Americans should not do (i.e. "anti-capitalist revolt is not going to work": First Noah Smith Law of History).

    Fine. What is it, then, they should do?

    Move, like the Jews, to the U.S.? Well, "direct application of the "model minority" solution is not going to work for African Americans".

    Increase tolerance? Ah, but "I don't pretend to know how to increase tolerance". Oh, well.

    I guess African Americans are left the Michael Jackson strategy: skin bleaching and cosmetic surgery. Don't ever step out of your place and get yourself a bullet-proof vest.

    Great advice, really. Thanks, young mastah, sir.

    Nigel O.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So one can only offer an opinion as to what won't work if they not only know what will but also how to implement it?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2:05 PM

      the United States has several destructive cultural norms that are most severely applied to blacks.

      in short, inequality and bad outcomes are viewed as "innate." few groups suffer more extensive inequality and worse environmental outcomes than blacks; the system gives up on them at an early age, they live in concentrated poverty at higher rates than other groups afaik, and in all situations must constantly prove their worth. even Barack Obama, POTUS, magna cum laude graduate of HLS, still comes under fire for having somehow not earned his place there.

      so, looking at all the blacks who "have made it" and to see how they are treated and to imagine all that they had to put up with, is there much incentive for them to try?

      higher SES blacks often live in lower-income neighborhoods. is it because they want would rather be around those would include them and appreciate them instead of those who would tolerate them?

      Delete
  14. BlixKrogg7:10 AM

    Noah makes the mistake of assuming that minorities are being kept down because of discrimination. It's definitely true that the drug war predominantly hurts minorities, but beyond that, where is the discrimination?

    As a Hispanic living in Indiana, where you'd think discrimination would exist, I just haven't seen any that hindered me. I worked for a rabid neo-con who would be fine flying a rebel flag yet she gave me my highest paying job because I had the skills and intellect to excel where others couldn't.

    The only discrimination minorities have to regularly deal with is a policing one - and it's one that is due largely to the drug war and the fact that most crime exists in areas of cities (which can afford more cops) where minorities settle - so of course the cops will hang out there more and end up arresting more minorities. That excessive policing, in turn, affects families and kids grow up in poverty due to having just one parent.

    Noah's right on them migrating. But if they don't want to move to the UK or Canada, they need to move where there's work and where there's less discrimination: the very heart of where liberals think discrimination exists - outside of traditionally liberal centers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree. The US is, by far, the most open, inclusive society there is.

      It does have a problem with irresponsible and unaccountable police, though.

      Delete
    2. MaxUtil3:47 PM

      You're right, other than the well documented and eminently observable discrimination in policing, the justice system, education, employment, housing, and social services, I just can't imagine what all this "discrimination" the blahs keep complaining about.

      I'm not saying that the US isn't the most open society there is (open for debate), but just because you got a good paying job doesn't mean that there is not still huge, persistent institutional racism in this country.

      Delete
    3. There is no evidence for any (major) discrimination in policing. There is some (conflicting) evidence for bias in sentencing, and pretty strong evidence for bias in capital cases.

      Little evidence of discrimination in employment, education or housing. Don't know about social services.

      Delete
    4. MaxUtil4:48 PM

      @Krzys - Well there's pretty solid evidence for discrimination in hiring. Education and housing get more complicated and can get tied up in issues more related to income/class, but there's pretty clear evidence of blacks getting routinely steered into lending programs that are worse for them than whites of equivalent income. I think it's pretty clear there is major discrimination within the entire of the justice system of which police are a key, but only a single part.



      I was mostly pushing back against the "The only discrimination minorities have to regularly deal with is a policing one" which is demonstrably false.

      Delete
  15. I agree that arguing to abolish or radically reform it is foolish. That argument was decided. Constant reform is needed,see 2008.

    But one can't understand racial oppression outside the realm of culture and politics, not just economics. And history.

    There is likely no other issue that has influenced American history more than racism.

    Obviously, slavery . the civil war, Jim Crow, the Southern Strategy.Of course the right has used race to garner power. And the appeal of this power is implicit in white supremacy.

    Why does a poor white bus driver in Mississippi vote Repuclican against his economic interest ?

    Dignity. Dignity drives people around the world from Palestine to China to Mexico . It is tribalism, nationalism. It the human stance that we matter, we have value.

    So when the white guy votes against his interest he's saying I am better, I am the elite. I own this nation. When Obama won it was we must take this nation back. From the black guy. The right went crazy.

    Racism the worst form of tribalism which is based on power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor white bus driver does not vote against his interests. The democratic party offers him identity based spoils system from which he is likely to be excluded.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You DO know what blacks need to do to reduce discrimination in the USA, you just don't want to tell them the truth about it.

    Behave.
    Behave better than whites.
    Behave like the Japanese who were discriminated against and sent to US concentration camps (not death camps, but concentration camps) in WW II.
    Most importantly, have less sex outside of marriage than whites; have fewer babies without being married than whites.
    Also honor education and hard work, but only having sex inside of marriage is the most important.

    The huge, 76% family breakdown in the black community is not a racism problem, it's a sexual behavior problem.

    You don't want to reduce racism enough to tell the truth about the biggest problem, so it's convenient to blame those who disagree with your politics.

    ReplyDelete