Chapter II opens with hypothetical situations:
The first is related to a beggar on the street. One businessman looks at another and says, "those bums always sticking their hands out—I wish they would get a job." His friend tells him he just displayed "classism." The author defines classism as "negative attitudes toward people of lower socioeconomic station than oneself." However, Oxford defines it as "prejudice against or in favor of people belonging to a particular social class." Therefore, it must be understood that each or any "class" may be guilty of "classism."
The second speaks of "magic pills" that could rid the world of (1) sexism, (2) racism, or (3) classism, which leads into what the author claims "divides critical race theory thinkers—indeed, civil rights activists in general."
Camp one is labeled "idealists." They hold "that racism and discrimination are matters of thinking, mental categorization, attitude, and discourse." That race is social not biological. Therefore, can be corrected by "changing the system" that is used to "convey to one another that certain people are less intelligent," etc. than others.
Camp two is labeled "realists" or "economic determinists." They hold "racism is a means by which society allocates privilege and status. Racial hierarchies determine who gets tangible benefits, including the best jobs, the best schools, and invitations to parties in people's homes."
The author points out that "educated Europeans held a generally positive attitude toward Africans" before "antiblack prejudice sprang up with slavery and capitalists' need for labor." Adding that "materialists point out that conquering nations universally demonize their subjects to feel better about exploiting them." Please note the use of "educated Europeans" and "capitalists' need for labor".
The author notes in 1954, based on the writings of a Derrick Bell, that "the interests of whites and blacks, for a brief moment, converged." However, the only—or major—reason the United States softened its stance toward domestic minorities was because (1) African American soldiers returning from war "were unlikely to return willingly to regimes of menial labor and social vilification" and (2) "the United States' interest in improving its image in the eyes of the Third World."
//
A second signature CRT theme, the author states, is: Revisionist History
Revisionist history reexamines America's historical record, replacing comforting majoritarian interpretations of events with ones that square more accurately with minorities' experiences. (* which must be viewed in scope with of "profit, labor supply, international relations, and the interests of elite whites.")
The author defines the materialists vs. idealists view:
Materialists: "one needs to change the physical circumstances of minorities' lives before racism will abate." Focusing on "unions, immigration quotas, the prison-industrial complex, and the loss of manufacturing and service jobs to outsourcing."
Idealists: "campus speech codes, tort remedies for racist speech, media stereotypes, diversity seminars, healing circles, Academy Awards, and increasing the representation of black, brown, and Asian actors on television shows will be high on one's list of priorities."
//
The author goes on to note that the color blindness of Liberalism is not enough.
Therefore, the focus seems to remain on a separation by race, rather than a unity based on humanity. Not to mention the seeming—broad stroke—association that conservatives see—I suppose—non whites as "undeserving minorities". We have to be careful when wishing to lump groups of people together; especially with the current topic of race.
The author notes, some conservatives "have seized on President Barack Obama's election to America is now a post-racial society, so that it is time for blacks and other minorities stop complaining and roll up their sleeves like anyone else." However, they no doubt disagree. I am unclear how the election of Barack Obama does not—at least in some way—prove our nation is not predominately moved or motivated by racism. How could a non-white be elected? (I speak as one who would think if racism were still so strong, only a white male would be elected.) And, I would hope persons would agree that we should all "roll up our sleeves" and work as we are able, with no one merely looking for a handout from another. Assistance should be there for those who need help passed what they can and are doing on their own, and not limited to only whites or non whites.
//
To keep race at the top of thought, the author appears to define "racism" into sections (because it is so "much more complex"; whereby pretty much anyone can be labeled a racist:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Therefore, the inclusion of homophobia, sexism and the like seem more about bringing persons/arguments into the camp of such thought, rather than Race theory.
2. Forms of indifference, coldness:
Can be associated with the person or personality of the person(s) showing it and/or the person(s) they are shown towards/against, thus they cannot be used as a definitive proof that someone is racist. So is the case of "unconscious racism", whereby someone can be accused of something they do not realize they have or possibly even display.
3. The idea of privilege:
Is not merely a "white" one. There are schools, resources, etc. that only a non white can have access to. Please do not attempt to say there are none.
I completely understand the need for support for non whites to help aid them in achieving the best that they can be. However, by definition, if it does not also allow for white persons, it is "black privilege" or "minority privilege". We cannot have a different rule for whites and non whites. If we do, we have only flipped the complaint to the other side, not resolved it. Not all white people have the resources to attend the school of their choice or feel able to work themselves "up" in society. It is silly to think white people—especially all—have an edge on the perfect life, simply because of race. White people can and do suffer also. We forget the "individual" when all we talk about is "race".
//
We will close Chapter II and proceed to Chapter III in the next post. Please remember these are my thoughts based on reading each individual chapter of Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. I do not cover every aspect of each chapter, so feel free to read the book yourself and make your own judgments.
The belief "in equality, especially equal treatment for all persons, regardless of their different histories or current situations."The assumption appears to be that "racism is embedded in our thought processes and social structures" too deeply for the color blindness approach to properly—consistently or fully—address the issue. "Only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are will do much to ameliorate misery."
Therefore, the focus seems to remain on a separation by race, rather than a unity based on humanity. Not to mention the seeming—broad stroke—association that conservatives see—I suppose—non whites as "undeserving minorities". We have to be careful when wishing to lump groups of people together; especially with the current topic of race.
The author notes, some conservatives "have seized on President Barack Obama's election to America is now a post-racial society, so that it is time for blacks and other minorities stop complaining and roll up their sleeves like anyone else." However, they no doubt disagree. I am unclear how the election of Barack Obama does not—at least in some way—prove our nation is not predominately moved or motivated by racism. How could a non-white be elected? (I speak as one who would think if racism were still so strong, only a white male would be elected.) And, I would hope persons would agree that we should all "roll up our sleeves" and work as we are able, with no one merely looking for a handout from another. Assistance should be there for those who need help passed what they can and are doing on their own, and not limited to only whites or non whites.
//
To keep race at the top of thought, the author appears to define "racism" into sections (because it is so "much more complex"; whereby pretty much anyone can be labeled a racist:
- biological racism
- intentional racism
- unconscious racism
- microaggressions
- nativism
- institutional racism
- then racism tinged with:
- homophobia
- sexism
- racism that takes the forms us:
- indifference
- coldness
- etc.
And of course the mention of "white privilege".
A few things to note here, if I may:
1. Racism is defined as:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Therefore, the inclusion of homophobia, sexism and the like seem more about bringing persons/arguments into the camp of such thought, rather than Race theory.
2. Forms of indifference, coldness:
Can be associated with the person or personality of the person(s) showing it and/or the person(s) they are shown towards/against, thus they cannot be used as a definitive proof that someone is racist. So is the case of "unconscious racism", whereby someone can be accused of something they do not realize they have or possibly even display.
3. The idea of privilege:
Is not merely a "white" one. There are schools, resources, etc. that only a non white can have access to. Please do not attempt to say there are none.
I completely understand the need for support for non whites to help aid them in achieving the best that they can be. However, by definition, if it does not also allow for white persons, it is "black privilege" or "minority privilege". We cannot have a different rule for whites and non whites. If we do, we have only flipped the complaint to the other side, not resolved it. Not all white people have the resources to attend the school of their choice or feel able to work themselves "up" in society. It is silly to think white people—especially all—have an edge on the perfect life, simply because of race. White people can and do suffer also. We forget the "individual" when all we talk about is "race".
//
We will close Chapter II and proceed to Chapter III in the next post. Please remember these are my thoughts based on reading each individual chapter of Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. I do not cover every aspect of each chapter, so feel free to read the book yourself and make your own judgments.
No comments:
Post a Comment