Filed under: politics, white privilege | Tags: Clinton, gender, identity politics, obama, race
Published 4/16/08
By: Kasey Henricks
Many have argued that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s battle to be the next potential president is evidence that America has moved to a post-race, post-gender society. On the contrary, how these candidates have addressed these issues, and at what lengths, suggest otherwise. Contrary to many accusations of playing identity politics, Obama and Clinton have left the issues of race and gender relatively untouched on their campaign trails.
Obama and Clinton didn’t get to the position where they are today by talking about the two distinguishing features that set them apart in the history of American politics – race and gender.
For Obama to address the issue of race, he would likely be accused of playing the “race card.” And this would potentially upset a chunk of the vote he needs to win the nominee, white people. After all, Obama has been winning states like Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado and Alaska. And the snow on the ground ain’t the only thing that’s white in these states. Obama’s candidacy highly depends on the white vote as whites make up three-fourths of the population, as reported by the last census.
Further, the same principle applies to Clinton. If she were to highlight gender issues and seek to remedy them, she’d likely be accused of playing the “gender card.” And Clinton needs another large chunk of the vote in order to gain the nominee, men. (Side questions: What kind of cards are race and gender? And when in America has being a woman or being nonwhite been a trump factor?).
Censorship. Let’s talk about it. Because Obama is dependent upon the white vote and Clinton the male vote, this drastically alters what issues they talk about and how they talk about them.
For Obama, he’s played it politically safe when it comes to addressing race. To his credit, he has persistently connected the past to the present by stating that today’s racial gaps are rooted in the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. This was among one of his central themes in his “A More Perfect Union” speech, or as some call it, his “race speech.” However, a statement like this isn’t any statement that deviates from what previous democratic nominees have said. John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton all made similar statements on their presidential campaign trails.
If Obama were to set himself apart when it comes to acknowledging race, he would have to pose a different argument. Perhaps it would be an argument that addresses a fuller picture of race relations in America. This argument would not only acknowledge the problems rooted in the past but address the ongoing discrimination that maintains and widens the racial divide. It would be an argument that distinguishes racial inequality from all other inequalities. It would be an argument that states when all factors are equal, race remains significant. And plenty of studies are out there to prove this. When variables such as class, gender, age, education, work experience and criminal records are controlled, race remains an influential factor in terms of discrimination in schools, the workplace, housing and other unmentioned areas. (For those interested in these studies check out: Joe Feagin, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, David Embrick, Thomas Shapiro, Robert Bullard, Douglas Massey, Marc Bendick, Marianne Bertrand, Sendhil Mullainathan and Devah Pager).
However, Obama has yet to make any such argument. But this may not be because Obama, himself, doesn’t share these views. He probably knows that constructing any such argument would potentially make a lot of white people uncomfortable and end his presidential run.
For Clinton, she has also played it politically safe when it comes to addressing gender. But to her credit, Clinton introduced a Senate bill entitled the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2007. This policy aimed to help bridge the gender gap in earned income disparities. However, it dwindled and never reached a debate.
Otherwise, when Clinton addresses social issues she tends to downplay gender inequality in areas like health care and education and focus on general access and availability to all people. While general access and availability to all people is a noteworthy approach and needs to be talked about, gender inequality in these areas is another noteworthy issue worthy of attention. But gender inequality is an issue that remains in the periphery of Clinton’s political dialogue.
However, Clinton’s lack of attention toward the issue may not be representative of her political stance. Like Obama, Clinton can only say so much. Too much gender talk may leave her labeled as a man-hating feminist and potentially alienate the male vote.
Another problem emerges from the political dialogue Obama and Clinton have engaged in. These candidates talk of race and gender as issues in themselves, which they are, but it’s problematic to isolate race and gender from other interrelated issues. For Obama and Clinton, race or gender gets talked about in one speech or debate, then remains largely ignored in the next few speeches and debates. Talking about racial and gender equality under these circumstances fails to provide any depth to which these problems reside. This approach skims over the root causes of racial and gender inequalities because it does not give any context for these problems. This dialogue does not incorporate racial and gender equality into interconnected issues of political representation, health care, the justice system, education access and attainment, poverty, accumulated wealth, income disparities, unemployment, among others. Until this dialogue is altered, these problems don’t look to be improved.
In closing, the 2008 democratic presidential race demonstrates how far America has come in making strides toward racial and gender equality. But more importantly, it demonstrates how far America still has to go.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 4/2/08
By: Kasey Henricks
It was 6:05 p.m. Thurs., April 4, 1968. One shot rang out in Memphis at the Lorraine Motel. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Rev. Ralph Abernathy, of Birmingham, bent down to cradle King’s head as Jesse Jackson and other members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference pointed across the street towards where the shot was fired. Soon after, King was rushed to St. Joseph’s hospital where he was pronounced dead.
King has meant many things to many people. However, he is not remembered for his silence. As the reverend once said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” No one has changed history by remaining silent. King was a man whose words put truth to power. A bullet may have ended King’s life, but his dream lives on. Forty years after his death, his legacy remains.
Many conservatives remember the King who marched on Washington, D.C. to deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. King shared: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
And many liberals recall the King who criticized the Vietnam War and declared that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” In a speech entitled “Beyond Vietnam” given at Riverside Church in New York City, King preached: “It should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam.”
Others remember the more radical King who argued for policies like reparations and affirmative action. In his work “Why We Can’t Wait,” King wrote, “Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat to catch up.”
And King is also remembered for his strong words against the evils of capitalism. In his 1967 SCLC Presidential Address, King said: “We honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America?’ And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society.”
King was all of these things, and more. One sentence, one paragraph, one book cannot encapsulate the meaning of what Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. has meant to people. King is a symbol, but he’s more than that.
His image represents inarguably one of the greatest struggles for liberation throughout history. King was not one to advocate silence, because as he saw it, social injustice was not continued by overt actions of bad people, but the disturbing silence of all the good.
And today, injustice remains. When disparities (such as political representation, healthcare access, home ownership, incarceration rates, education, poverty, accumulated wealth, earned income, unemployment, and many other issues) are further examined, King’s struggle remains imminent.
As bell hooks once wrote, “When we speak out in a liberated voice and break the silence, we connect with anyone anywhere living in silence.”
Forty years later, remember King. Break the silence.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 3/19/08
By: Kasey Henricks
Five years ago, the statue of Saddam Hussein tumbled to the ground, symbolizing at that moment liberation for the people of Iraq. Today, marks the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. No celebratory ceremonies have been announced.
The costs of the Iraqi War range broadly. Many analysts tend to focus in terms of dollars. In September 2007, an article in The Washington Post reported: “The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the [American Friends Service Committee's] analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.”
In addition, a recent column by Bob Herbert of The New York Times reported: “The war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more.”
But is a dollar figure capable of measuring the losses this country has experienced? What about the losses that Iraqis and other bystanders have experienced? As the war reaches the five-year mark, an alternative approach is needed to better address the suffering endured.
Let’s not view Iraq in terms of dollars, but in human lives. Recalling days after the invasion, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was questioned how many American lives will be lost in this war. Rumsfeld responded by saying he could count this number on both hands. He was off.
According to the Department of Defense, approximately 4,000 U.S. servicemen and women have died since March 19, 2003, and over 2,000 of those were soldiers enlisted in the Army. Of the 4,000 lives, the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count records that 84 were from Tennessee and three of those from Clarksville. In addition, more than 82,000 noncombatants, or innocent civilians, have been killed during this time, as reported by Iraq Body Count.
If all of the dead military servicemen and women were APSU students, this would mean our university would lose almost half of its population. Furthermore, if the noncombatant Iraqis who have died were APSU students then our university would increase its current enrollment nine times over.
Numbers matter, but which numbers are taken into account must be considered. A dollar value cannot measure the losses of life in the Iraqi conflict. Life is too precious to put a price tag on it. Five years later, it’s a duty of the living to remember and acknowledge the dead, and the sacrifices that have been made.
Iraq. Why are we there? For many, this answer remains murky. Regardless of the reason(s) why the U.S. is there, the fact remains that we are there. No easy answers are available on how to solve this situation successfully and peacefully. But as the five-year anniversary is upon us, I ask our readership to stop and acknowledge the dead lost in this conflict. Light a candle. Say a prayer. Observe a moment of silence.
To the servicemen and women and the Iraqi civilians, “We remember.”
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 1/23/08
By: Kasey Henricks
Three weeks into the primary season and Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan have potentially made a decision on behalf of the rest of America. Thanks.
If democracy is defined as resting sole authority in the people, the U.S. needs to reconsider its process of electing representatives.
Our electoral process has essentially approved these three states to prematurely narrow the presidential candidates before the other 47 states (Wyoming is somewhat of an exception) have exercised their opportunity to vote.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan compose nearly four percent of the nation’s population. Does this percentage constitute a representative voice for America? Also, these states can collectively be described as being middle-to-upper-middle class, northern-to-northeastern, average-educated white people.
This small sample of people influences and, in some ways, determines the electoral process. In conclusion, decisions are being made by some states for other states without their input. And these decisions are motivated by the interests of a select fraction within the population.
On the Democratic end, the potential candidates have been narrowed from eight to five candidates. And many Democratic voters consider this race to have only two horses remaining-Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. As for the Republican race, some uncertainty looms. Four GOP candidates have bowed out but seven still remain. Though many political analysts describe this race as being wide-open, the early primaries and Iowa caucus have allowed Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain a head start that may prove difficult for others to overcome.
For political campaigns, momentum is everything. Voters look to the results of early races to help determine how they will vote. If a person is unsure of which candidate to support, many will pay extra attention to early elections and caucuses to help inform a decision about which candidates are contenders and which ones are not. Obama and Rudy Giuliani are prime examples. Six months ago, many considered Obama to be an inexperienced underdog and not likely to win the Democratic ticket. Fast forward to present day, the Illinois senator has become a serious contender and is considered by many as the candidate to beat. On the other end of the political spectrum is Giuliani. His showing has been reduced to merely having a name on the ballot. Giuliani’s fourth and sixth place showings have discouraged many from viewing “America’s mayor” as being an electable candidate.
The case of Giuliani raises a strong point. Should votes be motivated by choosing a candidate that possesses the most “electability?” Or should voting be motivated by selecting a candidate that best represents a person’s views? Staggered primaries and caucuses have a tendency to promote the candidate most likely to be elected, but not necessarily the best candidate.
And how do candidates elevate their status to be considered electable? Money is one factor in this equation. It’s no coincidence that the winners of these early primary races have been the candidates raising the most dollars. According to CNN, Clinton and Obama have raised nearly $91 and $80 million, respectively. As for the Republican Party, Romney and McCain are among the top fundraisers with nearly $63 and $32 million. Giuliani ranks second among the GOP’s top money-getters raising nearly $47 million but this seems to be the only campaign strategy working out for the New Yorker.
Becoming president is expensive. A typical political tactic is to pour as much cash as possible into the first few races. If candidates build a strong presence early, a following is established and the other competitors’ funds are diminished.
Staggering caucuses and elections present a hiccup in the democratic process. A few states highly influence and somewhat determine the presidency. And because of these earlier elections, presidential candidates are forced to concentrate their cash in these few states. For some contenders, after this initial cash is spent, so are they. The race transforms from a battle of ideas to a contest of who has the deepest pockets.
One alternative to remedy this problem is to establish a national primary election and caucus day. All voters would hit the ballot at the same time allowing for a more authentic vote, free from outside influence and premature candidate selection.
No election results could influence how voters check their ballot. And campaign funds would have to be dispersed throughout the country making it more difficult for headliner candidates to capitalize on outbidding lower-tiered candidates. The sheer size and diversity within our country would force candidates to spread out their funds, opening the door for other candidates to strategically compete better. This proposal would potentially decentralize the process of electing presidential candidates, making it more representative of the peoples’ interests.
Given the current state of elections and caucuses, one thing is certain: America should reconsider its ideas of democracy and how it should be practiced.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 11/7/07
By: Kasey Henricks
Anytime human judgment is involved, unbiased opinion is not possible.
News is about presenting information. Behind every piece of information is an agenda. Contrary to what Fox News would like its audience to believe, it is not “fair and balanced.” And no, the token liberal co-hosting “Hannity & Colmes” isn’t fooling anyone. And for those liberal-minded people out there, MSNBC isn’t much worse. Having conservative Tucker Carlson host his own show doesn’t cover up or balance out MSNBC’s liberal bias.
Let’s speak truth about objective reporting in the complex social world: It’s not possible. For every piece of information, there’s a choice to present that information and how to present it. Partial realities describe the content presented by newspapers, magazines, TV and other media outlets. Everyone has a bias, including journalists. Forming a bias cannot be avoided. Things like experiences, interests and norms shape the way individuals think. And journalists bring such backgrounds to their job everyday.
To truly accomplish objective reporting, the world would have to be ideal. That is, ways of seeing would have to be the same for everyone. Objectivity is a state that occurs only when people have the same interests and experience base. Everyone would have to have the same point of reference. Everyone would have to possess the same logic. Everyone would need to have the same expectations. Such an environment leaves no room for dissenting opinion. Only in this ideal world could journalists consider all angles of a story.
Truth looks different to different people. A wise man once told me: “For every way of seeing, there’s a way of not seeing.” Viewing the social world is like looking at a multidimensional object. How an object appears depends on where a person stands. A different vantage point shifts the entire image. Journalism is much of the same. News is simply a narrow account of the complex social world. Each account is not a full description, but merely an introduction to the world as that person or group sees it. It’s a one-dimensional view for a three-dimensional world.
An alternative approach to journalism would be to admit these limitations. Admit that there is no all-encompassing method to presenting the news. Acknowledge that the social world is complex, and a five-minute news presentation or 500-word article cannot include all of the contributing factors as to why certain events occurred the way that they did. Confess these shortcomings, but commit to aggressively striving for truth with an open-mind.
Journalists should strive for a profession rooted in fairness and accuracy. The media must commit to considering more than “both sides of a story.” Traditional ways of thinking must be revised. No longer should it be acceptable to believe that two versions of a story are the only versions out there. Instead, journalists should ask: “What questions am I missing?” Much consideration should be given to the knowledge that remains unknown. The alternative approach to news could start with what is not known, not what is. Journalists should disclose what factors may have influenced or motivated their way of viewing an issue or event. Generally when individuals admit an interest in an issue or event, reasons exist for that interest. Providing such information would better inform audiences of what lens an issue or event is being looked through.
Journalism with an admitted bias opens the door for accuracy in reporting. Such an approach would spawn endless debate. But this type of debate may be exactly what the public needs. After all, this question and verify-everything approach serves democracy as a better method of holding government accountable. For example, it would have benefited the American public if the so-called “liberal-news media” would have lived up to its reputation prior to the invasion of Iraq. If the media hadn’t been consumed with the “Shock and Awe” campaign that showed America flex its muscles with close-up images of tanks and fighter jets, journalists might have stopped to ask: “Is Iraq a threat to America? Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? Is Iraq connected with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida?” An admittedly biased media outlet could have benefited America at such a time.
Honesty is perhaps the most-needed quality when dealing with issues or events that involve uncertainty. The media operates with limitations. But an approach that asks fellow journalists to add to the conversation of news serves as a better model of media. The need for fact-checking works best when the presented information is assumed to be false until proven true. Constant verification is a good thing.
Perfect media will never exist. But committing to foundational pillars in journalism is the first step to creating a more perfect media – a media that’s fair and accurate, but limited by its inherent shortcomings. Oh yeah, and the wall must come down.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Filed under: first amendment | Tags: contol, first amendment, free speech zones, free sppech
Published 9/26/07
By: Kasey Henricks
At Austin Peay State University, “We have those three unspeakably precious things: Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the prudence to never practice either.” – Samuel Clemens
APSU, like many other colleges, has a designated “Free Speech Area.” As it reads in the student handbook, this zone is a place where students and non-students alike are entitled to rights as acknowledged in the Constitution … but within the designated area under a certain time restriction, and perhaps the proper approval from the university facilities office.
People who value free speech should be concerned.
The “Free Speech Area” presents the illusion of allowing free speech. It gives the appearance that the university is open to the idea of free speech.
But what about the practice of it?
Free speech invites expressing ideas that may be contrary to others’ beliefs. If APSU was open to free speech, then why are there so many restrictions?
The university policy groups free speech activities into two categories – planned and spontaneous. Both activities are confined to the designated area on campus and must observe a time limit of 90 minutes. Exceptions may occur for longer activities, but proper university procedures must be followed.
Caution: Do not cross
The “Free Speech Area” places physical boundaries on where expressed ideas can flow. The APSU free speech zone is secluded from most classrooms, and this helps to eliminate any disruptions that free speech activities may cause. As it reads in the APSU student handbook, “the ‘Free Speech Area’ is located in the Plaza between the Morgan University Center and the Harvill Bookstore.” This central location offers convenience to students, but what about the rest of the community? Such a location blocks free speech from reaching the city of Clarksville. The “Free Speech Area” may not have been intentionally placed, but the current location is very much isolated from the outside world.
Perhaps an alternative to consider would be having a number of designated free speech zones. Some of these locations could be conveniently located along College Street. This proposal could improve APSU’s image as being a service and extension to the community rather than being its own private entity.
Less is not always more
An hour and a half may seem like it’s enough time to say something, but what kind of statement can be made in 90 minutes? Do you think that the Civil Rights Movement would have been as effective under these restrictive free speech policies? What about the anti-war movement that helped end Vietnam? Time was a major reason why these movements were so effective. The masses did not show up for a 90 minute demonstration, pack up and then go home. No. These movements were so effective because they were unavoidable, and time helped demand attention to their central issues. The Civil Rights Movement had been gaining momentum for decades, if not longer. And the rising dissent for Vietnam did not happen overnight – certainly not in 90 minutes. A lot can be said within a certain time limit, but that doesn’t mean it will be heard. Ninety minutes of free speech is too often just a passive way of not saying anything.
As mentioned earlier, exceptions may be granted for longer occurring events, but this requires going through the proper channels. The university facilities office has been given authority to grant these exceptions. Because this office has that authority, you don’t. The student handbook maintains exceptions “may be granted through the university facilities office.” And this also means that exceptions “may not” be granted. Ultimately, this office has authority to determine what occurs in the “Free Speech Area” and what doesn’t. Does this still sound like free speech?
Necessary illusions
The occasional activity staged in the “Free Speech Area” gives the illusion that APSU is welcoming and tolerant of the free expression of ideas. It helps maintain an image that a public discourse exists. But having these restrictions on free speech controls the level of debate. Free speech for 90 minutes that may or may not need university consent in a location convenient to students, but isolated from the community is not free speech. These restrictions injure free speech. What the university permits is like the appetizer of free speech, whereas things like sit-ins, demonstrations and strikes are the nourishing, yet forbidden, dinners of the freedom of speech. These restrictions placed on the First Amendment reduce symbolic acts to symbolic suggestions. Free speech areas allow introducing an idea, but that’s where it stops.
No democracy for you
At APSU, limitations are placed on free speech. But we must remember: “Universities are not democracies.” APSU operates as a business, so free speech isn’t exactly a high priority. The “Free Speech Area” is a measure of preventative control. And those who care about free speech need to ask: “Is this control legitimate?”
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Filed under: white privilege | Tags: overprivilege, white identity, white privilege, whiteness
Published 3/28/07
By: Kasey Henricks
It’s easy to be sympathetic to the underprivileged, but viewing those who are labeled as such all too often makes the privileged feel more grateful for what they already have. This perception removes the responsibility the privileged have to their counterpart, and ignores a bigger picture that encompasses both of those who have and those who do not. It causes the connections of the privileged and the deprived to remain unexamined.
Sympathy, at least, acknowledges that compassion is still intact for fellow humans. But sympathy alone is not enough. Sympathy reveals compassion, but it does not obligate actions of humility. Flip the coin on this perspective. If some people are generally underprivileged, then that means others are over-privileged. Understanding that being over-privileged affects the underprivileged brings the responsibility to resist many benefits when they come at another’s expense. Just like Peter Parker’s uncle once said, “With power comes great responsibility.”
Being white means being born into privilege. W.E.B. Dubois once wrote, “Whiteness is ownership of the world.” Being white means having a birthright. White people are born into a world run by and run for other white people. A person is less likely to ever question his or her racial legitimacy in a world that reflects his or her skin color.
Privilege in a world ruled by domination means that many benefits received by white people are unearned. Scholar Robert Jensen (who is white) articulates it best, “[Whites] all have plenty of help to achieve whatever we achieve. That means that some of what we have is the product of the work of others, distributed unevenly across society, over which we may have little or no control individually. No matter how hard we work or how smart we are, we all know – when we are honest with ourselves – that we did not get to where we are by merit alone.” Though plenty of privilege benefits whites, the problem with white people’s whiteness, as James Baldwin observed, is that it goes on unexamined.
Many whites do not understand what it means to be privileged. Being white means being born into special advantages and immunites. But the whites who fail to recognize this need to understand that “privilege” is not a one-dimensional term – it has both relative and absolute meanings.
Privilege is relative in the sense that we live in not only a racially divided country, but we also live in a country divided by class. This results in stratification; unequal distributions of power rank people accordingly. We see relative privilege where many white elites have better access and opportunity in such things as education, housing, the job market and the institutions of law and order when compared to whites of lower socioeconomic status. The privileges that come with being white are limited by social status; rich whites have more privilege than poor whites.
However, we see absolute privilege when we set the backgrounds of blacks and whites equal in such areas as socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, education and work – and being white trumps all. It’s absolute in the sense that being white guarantees certain advantages over being non-white – advantages that can be evidenced by the many racial disparities that exist in this country today.
Being white is being privileged. For those who still don’t follow, I’m reminded by something that Chris Rock once said in his performance “Bigger and Blacker.” He said, “There is not a white guy … who would trade places with me – and I’m rich.” For all those white people out there, ask yourself: “Would you be treated differently if you were not white? Would your life be different?” The answers to these questions may reveal some of the psychology of what being white means.
Those who do not see that being white means being privileged have dehumanized themselves through denial and allowed themselves to believe that we all live in a fair world. This simply is not reality. Privilege and depravation are products of a society plagued with racism. The tragedy is when this reality is not acknowledged by whites because being white means that we don’t have to think about being white. But every person has inherently racist perceptions, no matter what race that person is. As Edward R. Murrow said, “We are each a prisoner of our own experience.” Being white and over-privileged is blinding because it allows whites the security to never have to examine it. But acknowledging one’s social identity (race, class, gender, religion, ethnicity, education, etc.) and how it affects the identities of others (privilege and deprivation) is a step towards understanding differences and overcoming divisions.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Filed under: white privilege | Tags: Black History Month, racism, Slavery, white privilege
Published 2/28/07
By: Kasey Henricks
What a white person says about African Americans tells more about the speaker than the group of people being spoken of. It seems every February some rugged white individualist all too often is blinded by his or her own privilege to understand reality from a different perspective. All too often critics view Black History Month as symbolic of distanced history that is not applicable in this day and age.
A critic may argue, “Slavery. It happened. Get over it.” What this mentality fails to acknowledge is that while the days of traditional slavery are over in America, that doesn’t mean that African Americans aren’t still in chains. It’s common for a white person not to see this. And even when the remnants and effects of slavery are seen by white folks, many of these privileged sons and daughters do not challenge it. Because for a white person to challenge this injustice means that he or she would be challenging him or herself. This person would be addressing a system that was set up for and maintained by others like him or her – an institution that ultimately benefits whites. What white privilege won’t address is what humility refuses to dismiss: The book of slavery did not close on the day of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is a real thing that connects our past to our present. Equality, opportunity and belonging are a long way off from being achieved in the modern day United States. Until our white brothers and sisters allow themselves to acknowledge this reality, our harsh past will continue to be misunderstood as it resurfaces and confronts the present. This is best clarified by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his classic work, “Why We Can’t Wait.” The reverend explains, “It is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.”
“Slavery. It happened. Why don’t you get over it?” Besides this statement being partly Nazi with a chance of Klan, we must question if this is what should be asked. The more honest question would ask, “Is slavery over?” In the traditional use of the word – “yes,” but in a more contextual sense of the word – “no.” The remnants of slavery that exist today are plentiful and easily backed up by logic, research and statistics. As Kayne West says, “Racism’s still alive, they just be concealin’ it.” Today’s slavery takes new shape. It’s domination in the name of racial preference that was begun by white people and maintained for white people. The cycle of racial preference has not often been broken. Is it a coincidence that race correlates with accumulated wealth, education and income levels in the United States?
Slavery days can hardly be considered irrelevant when examining the current imbalance of accumulated wealth in our country. African Americans have not reaped the same material wealth that privileged whites enjoy today. This is largely due to the operations of generational wealth and, often, the direct denial of access. In a recent study performed by sociologists Robert Avery and Michael Rendall, it was concluded that whites are 2.2 to 3 times more likely to benefit from receiving family wealth when compared to African Americans. Furthermore, the average wealth transferred to whites was estimated at 360 percent more than what was received by black counterparts. Why? Maybe answers could be found in the restrictions of property ownership. The time frame African Americans have had access to property is only a minute portion when compared to white counterparts. Even when African Americans gained the right to own property, whites remained privileged when it came to government assistance. In the spirit of David Duke, historically speaking our government hasn’t been anti-black, it’s just been pro-white. Tim Wise clearly defines this in his book, “White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son.” Wise clarifies that whites received “FHA and VA loans for homes from the 1930s to the 1960s, at a time when such loans were essentially off-limits to blacks.” So not only have whites had exclusive access to property for a majority of our country’s existence, but when this same property was supposed to be made more equally available to other races, whites had practically subsidized their own socioeconomic status.
The remnants of slavery are present in today’s education system. Equal access in education has been talked about more than it has actually been enacted. Brown v. Board of Education ended segregation in 1954, but barriers maintaining separation still exist. Education is interconnected with accumulated wealth. Where an individual falls on the color spectrum may influence whether or not that person is provided the same access to educational opportunities. Loans typically are only available to those who have collateral to back the borrowed amount. Taking into consideration the racial preference in accumulated wealth, statistically speaking, being white helps black out the inability to acquire the funds to achieve an education. Another racial bias lies in the method of evaluating individuals on the basis of standardized tests. For the most part, these tests determine who gets into school and who does not. It’s worth noting that test scores have strong correlations to race, yet when it comes to their predictability value (their potential to do well and graduate college) something is left to be desired. According to political scientist Cecilia Conrad, the standardized test score a student receives is more of a reflection of the family’s socioeconomic status (thus race) rather than his or her ability. For the SAT, scholars Susan Sturm and Lani Guiner have determined that test score correlations compared to four-year graduation rates and GPAs explain “no more than three percent of the difference between any two students.” Furthermore, the National Commission for Fair and Open Testing performed a study of the ACT uncovering similar findings. In this study it was found that ACT scores could only explain less than four percent of variances in GPAs among students.
Contemporary slavery prohibits African Americans from having equal opportunity in terms of accumulating wealth and obtaining education credentials, but the injustice further extends its position into the job market too. In a 2003 national Census Bureau study, it’s reported that regardless of whether an African American has a high school diploma, bachelor’s degree or master’s degree, his white counterpart earns an income of approximately 20 percent more. Furthermore, throughout the course of history things have gotten worse before they have gotten better. United for a Fair Economy has performed a study providing that in 2002 the typical African American family earns an income of only 58 percent of a white family. In 1968, the African American family earned 60 percent as much. Another disturbing trend outside the income disparities lies in that fact the African American employment is double as much compared to whites as reported in 2004 by United for a Fair Economy. These statistics yield the conclusion that while employers may not be overtly participating in racial discrimination, an underlying bias interconnected with education, accumulated wealth and the labor market play a factor in furthering a process of racial preference.
Slavery is still alive in the sense that yesterday defines today and today determines tomorrow. No one is born into a clean-slate-world. As for slavery, most whites do not feel responsible because they did not physically participate in this atrocity. This mindset fails to see that while no white person can be held personally responsible for slavery, we are responsible for what we choose to see. We must see that connecting yesterday to today is crucial in overcoming the already mentioned racial injustices, and many more unmentioned. An individual’s life does not begin the day that person enters the world. Someone does not get to chose where he or she lives, who the parents are or at what socioeconomic status he or she is born into. An individual is born into circumstance. The more a person comes to understand this, the better prepared he or she will be in honestly confronting the modern-day slavery. Circumstance connects a person to the past, and without understanding this past a person can never confront the present. And if the present is lost, then there’s no hope for a better future.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 1/17/07
By: Kasey Henricks
Love. Nonviolence. Compassion. Understanding. Radical. Integrity. Persistence. Resistance. Humility. These are all words I would use to describe the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The man had a dream. And my dream is that his dream will not be forgotten. I do not claim a sole interpretation on the works of the Rev. King. And I do not claim that I can answer for the man, but paying tribute to the Rev. King deserves an honest reflection in attempting to establish who the man was and more importantly, who he wasn’t.
Around this time of year many look back to the infamous speech addressed at the March on Washington in 1963 – “I have a dream.” He shared with everyone: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This single line from one single speech does not fully encompass what the man represented. King was radical and called for fundamental changes that were not accepted with open arms.
Was he well received or did he ask for too much too soon?
The reverend was not a man of comfort. Many tend to overlook and dismiss the person MLK was. Yes he dreamed of a day where character mattered more than skin color, but King was not accepted as the revolutionary that he was. It should be noted that the Rev. King was a strong advocate of protesting the war, opposing the evils of capitalism and supporting the implementation for reparations. But how much do those ideas of his get talked about? He was a man of lawful disobedience. The Rev. King did follow fabricated guidelines, but his moral compass called him to follow something bigger. He answered to the higher callings of God, justice and morality (or maybe those are all one in the same?). King led a movement that laid a demand for equality on the white majority. He was the one to lead a movement where blacks would no longer allow others to decide their future. King forced the privileged to not just grant equality, but to give back what they had taken. In the “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” it was he who wrote, “History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.” King knew that negotiation by the terms of those who are privileged was a justice not to be found. King uncomforted comfortable people. Throughout his beautiful struggle, he was a man who faced rejection after rejection. But in the face of this rejection, the Rev. King refused non-confrontation and directly upheld accountability to the call of justice.
Was the Rev. King ‘unwise and untimely’?
King was radical in what he saw as the root of racism. He saw racism perpetuating itself through the disconnect of so many good people. The Rev. King saw the fight for social justice as eminent because it was continued by not the overt actions of the bad people, but by the overwhelmingly disturbing silence of all the good. He pointed out that it was not the boys in sheets to be worried about, but the men in suits. Martin Luther King held accountable the American values that had been so misguided, or maybe it would be more appropriate to say hijacked. He held accountable a nation that appeared on the verge of becoming morally bankrupt. While preaching in New York the Rev. King said, “that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin … the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” He preached that justice would only become reality through a revolution of the mind. King saw fundamental problems requiring radical answers for the necessary change. MLK called out how the “American Dream” had gone wrong. The Rev. King awoke the spiritual laziness of so many Americans in also preaching in New York, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
“An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Many tend to forget that King was one of the most adamant fighters of the Vietnam War. He strongly spoke out and urged anyone with respect for humanity to stand up too. “Silence is betrayal,” he said and he held accountable anyone who labeled him or herself as responsible. He pledged that it is these responsible people’s duty to speak up for what is right, but more importantly to have the integrity to call out what is wrong. On April 4, 1967 in a sermon he preached, “Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam … I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.”
King was not well received from our government either, and he was under constant surveillance as well. The Rev. King was not greeted as a protector of liberty and justice for all, but he was painted as more of a nuisance. According to historian and sociologist James W. Loewen, in 1964 “the FBI tried to sabotage receptions in King’s honor when he traveled to Europe to claim the Nobel Piece Prize.” President J. Edgar Hoover is also notorious for attempting to undermine King’s credibility. It was President Hoover that labeled the reverend as “the most notorious liar in the country.” Robert Kennedy was not a supporter either. In Howard Zinn’s “Passionate Declarations: Essays on War and Justice,” it’s noted that it was he – acting as attorney general – who authorized and defended the wiretapping of King’s phone lines. It was Kennedy who supported the FBI’s suspicion that King was supporting communism.
Would the Rev. King support reparations and affirmative action?
The reverend was also radical enough to point out the flaws in an argument that many critics of programs enforcing equality still use today. Many critics opposing a program such as affirmative action fail to address inequality and thus perpetuate forms of discrimination. Critics would like to believe that laws protecting civil rights eliminate the existence of discrimination. King saw through this. He dismantled such an argument in his classic piece, “Why We Can’t Wait.” The reverend wrote, “Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat to catch up.” And from this statement, King argued for something more potent than equality in the form of affirmative action; he argued for equality in the form of reparations as well. But not too many choose to recall that Martin Luther King. That part of the reverend doesn’t make them feel so good. That version of King does not excuse silence as innocence, so many choose to have a selective memory in remembrance of the reverend.
Remembering the King, recalling the dream
But King was more than a dream. He saw that any call for social justice was not going to be made from the top on down, but from the bottom on up. The reverend knew that the struggle for civil rights began on the individual level. He knew that detached moral consciousness would have to be overcome. King knew that social justice was to only be accomplished through harsh and dreadful actions, and that love in inaction – much like a love spoken in wishful thinking – was nothing short of being morally lazy. The Rev. King was a very action-driven man and he knew that belief without work was not really belief at all. His actions challenge all who deem themselves responsible in society to “be the change that they want to see in the world.” His life became a short, but beautiful struggle to see a world where problems came from not “the color of one’s skin, but from the content of one’s character.”
King committed to non-violence and he knew that no justice was to be found when being held at gunpoint. He knew not of a world where bombs brought brotherhood. He knew that the philosophy where “might makes right” ultimately continues injustice. He was a man who saw “the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism” as all being interconnected.
In seeking social justice, one must address the problem or more than likely one is the problem. In memory of King, I call on all to redemption through the struggle. Do not what is right for recognition of doing so. Do not what is right for you own or others’ ends. Do what is right because it’s right.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
Published 11/22/06
By: Kasey Henricks
Last week I spoke with one of God’s chosen people. He’s a fifty-year-old Russian Jew with four beautiful kids. I just happen to be marrying his eldest daughter in just a few short weeks. Anyway, over the summer I read an interesting perspective on Jewish identity by antiracism activist Tim Wise in his book “White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son.” In it, he discusses his personal experience on what it means to be a descendant of Yiddish ancestry and tells a story, common to many, of what it means for an immigrant to melt into this great country of ours. After reading Wise’s account, this made me wonder about my soon-to-be wife’s history. Could it be similar?
Speaking with Daddy Oresman, I asked him what he knew about his migrant grandfather. The story begins in 1901, when the grandfather enters the gates of Ellis Island. The promise of liberty, opportunity and equality birthed an enchantment that one typically only finds through the beauty calling of “America.” Much like Tim Wise’s personal narrative, the Oresman version reveals much of the same. It begins with the arrival at Ellis Island. As the grandfather encountered the immigration officer with his thick, hard-to-decipher Yiddish accent (as if that couldn’t have been trouble enough) more problems were born from that moment on. It unraveled like this:
“Name please?”
“Urisman.”
“Excuse me?”
“Urisman.”
“What? Look, I can’t understand your thick accent. If you are in this country you’re gonna have to speak like an American. What you’re saying isn’t going to work, so I’m just gonna make it easy for ya. You’re no longer Ursman, Earsman, Orksman or whatever it is ya say. You’re now Oresman, O-r-e-s-m-a-n. Next please!”
And that’s where the breaking of an identity began. Urisman’s first day in the land of the free and home of the brave was one that would foreshadow the rest of his and his ancestors’ lives. You see, to live in a world of white privilege, one must own the role of whiteness. Much like Mr. Urisman’s name, the stories and traditions of the old world (especially anything not Western European in early 20th century America) could not be carried over, because to hold onto that would be to hold onto resistance – resistance that would prevent the assimilation process. You see, to hold onto anything that strayed away from what was considered pseudo-culture, would be to obstruct the transformation of what it means to be American.
The lure of America was that it had promised everything for nothing (as long as you read the fine print). That nothing is not something to be overlooked. That nothing was something. The day my fiance’s great-grandfather laid foot on Ellis Island, we lost identity. That day he and every generation to follow him lost a connection to our history.
So what’s the relevance of history? Nothing really. Only the ability to understand the present because of knowledge of the past. Nothing but knowledge of who you were, where you come from, how you survived and why you are the way that you are. Yeah, only that. Only a lost tie of being able to identify yourself. You know, nothing major.
So that is the cost of privilege. And this privilege is a privilege, but it’s also a burden. Without this price being paid, there is no doubt that the things Lisa (my other) and I enjoy would not be possible, but ignoring why we have these things would be a false reality. Often times, many overlook this. And that presents a problem. Without understanding the past, how can one understand the present?
It’s something our identity (or lack of it) reminds us of, something my wife and children will have to pay every day. This is a cost that forces people to be something they are not, a disconnection disabling people from ever being who they were and preventing them from ever being who they’re supposed to be.
While many privileges have stemmed from migrations to the United States, gains are not made without losing something. With benefits come sacrifices. My philosophy is sometimes you must lose yourself to find yourself. But finding yourself is a hard thing to do when it comes to breaking who you are.
© Copyright 2008 The All State
