Rachel’s Tavern- Shakesville Comment on Whiteness and Racial Awareness
- Arrested for BAHWB (Being at Home While Black)
- John Hope Franklin Has Died
- Bottles, Breasts, and Mothering “Choices”
- NAACP Class Action Lawsuit on Subprime Loans
- We Have a Future Blogger
- I’m Afraid President Obama, Himself, is a Bit of Coward on the Race Issue
- Highly Skilled US Immigrants are Emigrating: What’s the deal?
- Troll Comments Galore
- Mark’s Spinach Face
Jan
15
“Let’s Get Back to the Real Issues”
Filed Under Black/African American Issues, Gender and Sexism, Original Essays and Analysis, Politics, Race and Racism by Rachel
As the Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama heats up, race and gender have come to the forefront of the discussion. I have heard many people suggest that we stop talking about race and gender and “get back to the real issues.” While I agree that most race and gender based personal attacks do not address real political issues, we should not forget that racial and gender issues are real issues. We should not forget that racism and sexism are still fundamental problems in the US.
Let’s think about it…
The race and gender gaps in earnings are real issues.
The mass incarceration of black men is a real issue.
Violence against women is a real issue.
Racially motivated hate crimes are a real issue.
Gender and race based job discrimination are real issues.
Race and gender disparities in health care delivery are real issues.
Affirmative action is a real issue.
Stereotyping is a real issue.
The list could go on and on.
I know many Americans are uncomfortable openly discussing how race and gender influence our political system, but this doesn’t mean that these issues are not “real.” Denial won’t erase social inequality. It’s a shame that many people would rather purge discussion of racism and sexism from the public discourse than actually work to give people an equal shot.
Comments
33 Responses to ““Let’s Get Back to the Real Issues””
Leave a Reply
Amen.
I am so disheartened to hear people, usually white, saying things like this.
I just wrote a piece about this on salon.com. It went up yesterday. Let me know your thoughts.
I bow in your general direction.
Denial is the instrument used to make sure that Black folks never receive proper redresss for the National sins committed against us…We represent, for better or worse, the ultimate aggrieved party. If we get our just due, the entire system of inequality will be turned on its head…there will be no justifable excuse to maintain other examples of exploitation if Black folk finally get their “40 acres and a mule”…
Lester Spence,
your article effectively points out the “Black side of denial”… our leadership expresses more concern about symbolism rather that actual remedy because deep down they are convinced that this nation will NEVER do right by Black folk…wholesale remedy has been deemed out of the question and has been reinforced by massive doses of propaganda, the elevation of self-hating Black folk to positions of “power” and outright assassination.
I don’t mean to play down the issues you listed, but until we solve the bigger problems of population numbers, global warming, energy alternatives, and a sustainable economy, tackling relatively minor problems is unlikely to make a whit of difference to the quality of anyone’s life.
OK Phil…
So, how do we get that sustainable economy, alternative energy technology, etc. when a greate than expected part of the minority population is affected by drug abuse, high crime rates, poverty, poor education, lack of job opportunities, etc. in part caused and abetted by a racist society, which leads not only to high incarceration rates, but to a drain of intellectual and economic potential. How many people who with the right education and support could SOLVE those big problems are affected by crime and drugs and poverty, get discouraged by a school system that is underfunded and understaffed, and never get to explore their own potential?
The personal is the local is the national is the global.
BTW: I’m pretty sure Phil Hanson’s post qualifies as one of the “Ways to Derail A Racism Discussion” list that gets bandied about: “Why do you care about X issue when there are so many OTHER issues in the world?”
Like we can’t expect both?
Or like they are somehow disconnected–I may just have to write an entire post about how the issues he brings up are related to the issues above.
Lyonside:
Legalizing cannabis hemp would be a good place to start, as hemp has the potential to solve many of society’s most pressing problems.
Hemp is a voracious user of carbon dioxide throughout its growth cycle, making it the ideal plant for carbon sequestration. Due to its high cellulose content, hemp would also make an excellent feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production (thus far enabling the plant to fight global warming in two ways).
Biofuels made from hemp will also play a role in achieving energy independence by reducing our need for foreign oil. It will also minimize our use of coal, a notorious greenhouse gas emitter.
A sustainable economy can be based on legalized hemp. At the time hemp was banned, in 1937, an estimated 25,000 different products could be manufactured from various parts of the plant. In addition to these, how many more products could be made using modern technologies and processes? A hemp-based economy presents new opportunities for financial gain and promises to create millions of high-tech, mid-tech, and low-tech jobs that currently don’t exist.
When hemp is legalized and society doesn’t fall apart, people will be more likely to support drug legalization across the board, thereby causing the collapse of illicit drug trade and removing the establishment’s primary excuse for incarcerating black men.
New opportunities for financial advancement bring about solutions to many of the problems Rachel cited. As I hinted at in my previous post, when you take care of the big problems, the little problems simply go away.
Um, no, society is not overprosecuting/overincarcerating black men because of MARAJUANA or any other substance.
Our society overprosecutes black men because of systemic racism. Statistically more whites use and deal drugs than blacks or other ethnic minorities, and if dealing are usually situated at a higher level in the chain. But black and brown people are disproportionately investigated, arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated. In some instances the sentencing, bail limits, and availability of substance abuse treatments, also shows racial bias.
Other systemic problems that feul the drug trade are poverty and lack of education. Those problems stay even if drugs were legalized. And there’s no guarantee that legalization would make anyone less racist.
“Little” problems, hunh? You must not be black or brown.
Yes, my Libertarian and liberal Republican counterparts have advanced similar arguments as Phil has. I tend to find them convincing myself. But the market has a way of checking itself if this were to occur. To begin with, life and health insurance carriers would charge additional premiums for underwriting the health and lives of marijuana users.
Although I work in the financial sector and I see merit in what Phil is pointing out, my background in Sociology kicks in and says “even a sound economic alone does not alleviate deep sociological problems”.
Oh…I am sorry…I cannot resist…I do recall being less of a racist when I was getting stoned in my younger days.
Obamma vs any Republican
I pray That Clinton fails!!
I am a Black Republican so this would offer me a win-win solution. Any Black President that could get elected would be benificial for African Americans and any Republican besides Ron Paul who is a clear racist would be good for the country. I have not met any African Americans in Sacramento who would vote for Hillary over Obamma.
Clinton offers me nothing but tears in my eyes on election day. I bet she wins.
MikeR:*sigh*
Once again – a black person is not automatically good for black people because of their skin color. Any more than multiracial folk are automatically anti-racist because they’re multiracial (stop me if this sounds familiar, as I’ve said this many ims to you before). Shouldn’t a good president try to do good for EVERYONE and not one group, ethnic minority or not? Do you really think a President Obama could pass policies that only benefit people of African descent, or that a President H. Clinton could pass policies that only benefit women?
I’m not touching the “Republican = good for country” with a 10 foot pole, because this isn’t that type of blog. But you’re essentially saying that Obama would be good for black people, and a Republican would be good for everyone. From what I’ve seen since 1980, sorry, not so much.
Hey, Mike Reynolds. How the hell are ya! Long time no see.
“Obamma vs any Republican
I pray That Clinton fails!!
I am a Black Republican so this would offer me a win-win solution.”
This from a man who stated the following:
“I often vote color and I am not ashamed of it.”
http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=428#comments
Mike Reynolds, if you are so gung-ho on getting a black man into the highest office in the land, why will you not vote for Alan Keyes?
Oh, yeah, Alan Keyes, you know, that BLACK MAN running for president.
That BLACK REPUBLICAN.
http://www.alankeyes.com/
Ever heard of him?
What’s the matter…he’s not “black” enough for you?
Probably not sane enough.
That bears repeating.
There’s also the fact that rural unemployment would rise sharply if prisons weren’t kept filled up. Every “prison town” in America would die.
HE’S running? You know what, why not.
Hey, Obama beat him easily in a previous election, and wow, would that make the pundits go NUTZ on a national level, to have two “black” presidential candidates …
[...] “Let’s Get Back to the Real Issues” : Rachels Tavern Amen! “I know many Americans are uncomfortable openly discussing how race and gender influence our political system, but this doesnt mean that these issues are not real.” (tags: race gender politics barackobama) [...]
I totally agree… I was actually trying to express this exact sentiment to my co-worker yesterday when we were talking about the dangers of the race turning into a “white woman vs. Black guy” competition. But you said it so much better than I did!
A lot of it has to do with disparities in education.
Christopher Morton has written quite a bit about Chicago’s public schools. He himself was educated in a Catholic school.
Yes, it is.
Of course none of them would be incarcerated if they did not commit crimes.
It depends on the context.
Men who beat women for talking back are cowards.
Men who rape women are pathetic losers who can not get any.
People who commit racially motivated hate crimes are cowards.
The best way to deal with the issue is to make sure that they are not safe while doing so.
Explain why this is a bad thing.
“Men who rape women are pathetic losers who can not get any. ”
I can’t help but agree with the former, but the latter is an outright falsehood (ex. Andrew Luster), one of those old-school myths about rapists that’s right next to “they’re typically creepy-looking strangers who jump out of the bushes.”
“Of course none of them would be incarcerated if they did not commit crimes”
“None” is a strong word, Michael… and if you’ve been looking at the news lately, you know as well as I do that it’s the wrong word. Why not “most”? Is that so much of a forfeiture?
“Explain why this is a bad thing.”
From a law & order standpoint, it’s like shooting someone in the foot instead of the head. Focusing on a smaller, less powerful segment of the population may be politically safer, but it’s much less effective. While the jails are full and there’s fine footage of folks in handcuffs, there’s no significant dent being made in the drug trade and little fear of jailtime for the larger group of more politically powerful people in “good neighborhoods” who want to entertain themselves chemically and/or facilitate the entertainment of their peers for a tidy sum.
Explain why this is a bad thing.
Come again? Why ever would it not be a bad thing to arrest, prosecute, and imprison black people more than white people for using and dealing drugs when black people don’t use and deal drugs more than white people? The basic principle of fairness requires an explanation?
Life is not fair.
Has anyone ever told you that?
Hey Michael: OK, then, lets arrest you and your brother (possibly hypothetical) for a crime, but not the 4 other people right next to you doing the same thing at the same time.
You wouldn’t mind that at all, right, because “life isn’t fair.”
Oh, and the people who put you up to the crime are never caught, and go out and recruit more people with impunity.
Michael, what about its ineffectiveness as a crime-fighting tactic?
Life is also not always good, Michael. If you use your “life is …” standard, you don’t have any business complaining about anything (including being the victim of a crime), because, you know, whatever you’re complaining about is just the way life is.
Or, hey, why ever bother to do medical research on painful terminal illnesses? People suffer and people die, hasn’t anyone ever told you that? And then we’d never get the improvements that we manifestly do get, when we see “life,” as, if not a perfectable thing, at least an improveable thing.
The Real Issues…
by matttbastard
While I agree that most race and gender based personal attacks do not address real political issues, we should not forget that racial and gender issues are real issues. We should not forget that racism and sexism are still fundamental …
It is precisely the fact that the people at the top are politically powerful that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to take down.
But that’s not your argument, Michael (and the “impossible” is false because politically powerful can mean different things – it doesn’t mean immune from the law):
Your argument is, why should you (and us, apparently) care about miscarriages of justice, carried out systemically on targeted populations.
We answered. You replied with a non-sequitur.
Care to address those answers?
Lyonside, I bet you wouldn’t question those argument tactics… if you didn’t hate freedom!
It’s why they get called Glibertarians, sigh.
That’s right. Why do I hate their freedom?
“It is precisely the fact that the people at the top are politically powerful that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to take down.”
While that may be true, it doesn’t follow from that that it’s perfectly fine to pick off a bunch of folks at the bottom rung and call it progress, especially since there will always be a pool of people desperate enough to replenish the ranks. I’m not even saying that equality has to mean being “soft on the drug trade”… it could also mean arresting a lot of people that move coke from their penthouses, a lot of trust fund kids who think they’re Scarface, and putting them in jail right beside the guys that man the street corners and the people with expired inspection stickers who were caught holding. I’d be fine with that. Oh, and I checked out your Myspace page… I have mixed feelings… on one hand, you’re slightly to the right of Michael Savage, on the other hand, you’re quite adorable… does not compute! I’ve explained to you why the status quo is bad… your move.