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
Feb
9
Colorblind Racism vs. Old Fashioned Racism
Filed Under Original Essays and Analysis, Race and Racism, Sociology, Uncategorized by Rachel
Editor’s Note: As I prepare to unveil my new comment policy, I thought it might be useful give definitions of some of the terms I used in my discussion.?
Rory asked my what I meant by colorblind racism/racists.? I realized yesterday that I had previously put up a post about this subject.? What I mean by colorblind racism is laid out in that post, but I would like to? elaborate on the subject a little further.? Social scientists have coined the term colorblind racism to refer to what is likely the most common type of racism in contemporary America.? Colorblind theorists start from the idea that racism in contemporary America differs from racism of earlier eras.? Although I used the term colorblind racism, I think it is useful to point out that several different terms have been used to describe contemporary racism.? Symbolic racism, laissez faire racism, and colorblind racism are the most common terms I have seen.
So how does the new racism differ from the old racism?? Using attitude data from the National Election Survey, political scientists David O. Sears and Christopher Tarman (2005)? used a statistical technique called factor analysis to examine whether or not the new racism differed from the old racism.? Their analysis indicated that there were two types of racism.? Old fashioned racism or Jim Crow racism was marked by the following attitudes–opposition to intermarriage, belief in segregation, belief in biologically based intellectual inferiority, and opposition to voting for a black president.? They identified symbolic racism as the following set of attitudes–belief that blacks lack motivation, belief that discrimination is not the cause of racial inequality, belief that racism gets too much government attention, and a belief that blacks should work their way up with no special favors.? Bobo, Kluegel, and Smith (1997)? favor the term laissez faire racism. They? argue that laissez faire racism involves three key elements persistent negative stereotyping of African Americans, opposition to policies to improve the conditions of African Americans, and a tendency to blame African Americans for the persistent gap in socio-economic standing.
Colorblind racism is similar.? Sociologists Eduardo Bonilla Silva argues that colorblind racism involves
- increasingly covert racial discourses and practices,
- avoidance of racial terminology and claims by whites that they experience reverse discrimination,
- a racial agenda in the discussion of political matters that avoids direct racial references,
- invisibility of the mechanisms of racial inequality, and
- the rearticulation of some of the elements of Jim Crow racism (pg. 90).
One of the most important elements of contemporary racism is the emergence of the colorblind ideology. The colorblind ideology asserts that color is not important and should not be the basis for social judgments. The key problem with colorblind ideology is that it is an abstract principle that does not hold true in practice (Bonilla Silva 2001).
Racism theorists may disagree with each other about whether or not these three terms–colorblind racism, symbolic racism, and laissez faire racism–are capturing different concepts, and they also likely disagree over which idea best captures contemporary discrimination.? ? There are also some very important methodological differences between? the researchers who use the term colorblind racism and those who use symbolic racism or laissez faire racism.? My sense is that those who focus on colorblindness tend to use in-depth interviews (or other forms of qualitative research) while those using laissez faire and symbolic racism tend to use large scale surveys (or quantitative methods)? to try to measure racism.? This is important because many proponents of the colorblind racism perspective believe that contemporary racism is severely underestimated in surveys because either the wrong questions are being asked or because the questions do not allow for answers that reflect depth and complexities of contemporary racial beliefs.? Interviews allow people to elaborate in ways that make it a little more difficult to mask prejudices
Personally, I tend to use the term colorblind racism more than the other two terms.? I do this partly because my methodological orientation is more qualitative, and partly because I feel the term colorblind racism is clearer and easier to explain to a general audience than the other terms.? Nevertheless, I think each perspective adds does help explain how racial inequality persists even though racist attitudes seem to be less widely accepted.
Tarman, Christopher & Sears, David O. 2005. The Conceptualization and Measurement of Symbolic Racism. Journal of Politics? 67? (3),? 731-761.
Bobo, Lawrence, James Kluegel and Ryan Smith. 1997. Laissez Faire Racism: The Crystallization of a Kinder Gentle, Antiblack Ideology. In Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change, Steven Tuch and Jack Martin, (eds.) Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Comments
98 Responses to “Colorblind Racism vs. Old Fashioned Racism”
Leave a Reply
Thank you Rachel. It wasn’t quite what I thought it was, so your explanation helped me understand where you were coming from.
Coming from an education junkies point of view, I see a lot of what you defined in our countries education policies. white flight, funding inequities, teacher quality, etc…
The education system also unintentially perpetuates social inequities in their choices of curriculum. I invite you to look at Project Follow Through in the 60’s. Despite all evidence to the contrary, education policy makers continue to advocate teaching methods that fail to adequately educate historically low performing groups.
I probably disagree with you on a lot, but hopefully your new comment policy will allow me to occassionally pipe in.
This looks like the thread topic so I”ll guess this is the spot for discussion…
Really it seems like the debate is between “racism = causing the problem” vs. “racism = failing to actively cure the problem.”
Jim Crow racism was pretty clearly “causal” racism; “colorblind” racism seems the latter type. So that’s a pretty significant difference, wouldn’t you say?
In any case, this article does seem a tad like circular groupspeak. Take this:
“…claims by whites that they experience reverse discrimination,
Whites DO experience reverse discrimination; it’s called “affirmative action.” Now, it’s minorin it’s effect. And it’s generally justified. And it’s rare. But it exists–that is, unless you want to throw “discrimination” into the redefining-machine along with racism, such that whites can’t be discriminated against. In which case, sure, there’s no “reverse discrimination.”
But enough of the AA debate. I don’t care much for it–lord knows there’s hardly any AA in the country anyway. I just get tweaked when people appear to deny facts. Though maybe this means something other than what it says…?
I’m more interested in your attitude towards neutrality.
Neutrality used to be, well, neutral. Passivity used to be neutral. In other words, if one didn’t act either to change or maintain the status quo, one was probably not acting in a racist fashion because of one’s passivity (might have been racist, or not, for other reasons).
Now, you seem to be claiming neutrality and passivity are racist (at least if one is white)…? Seems that all these definitions are essentially saying In order to avoid one of the many “racist” labels, you must actively work towards fixing the racial problems around you.
Is that right?
“The colorblind ideology asserts that color is not important and should not be the basis for social judgments. The key problem with colorblind ideology is that it is an abstract principle that does not hold true in practice (Bonilla Silva 2001).”
How exactly does this ancient and purly rhetorical staple of anti-socialist discourse:
” X is abstract and does not hold true in practice”
um…pass off as a sound argument?
Last time I checked, (just as it used against anti-capitalists for the last 150odd years) such an argument was ignoring the notion of time as to cloak the fact that a a particular principal could be/is at a developing stage in a society.
For example, here Bonilla-Silva is ignoring the fact that the total deconstruction of race *will* create a world where “color is not important and should not be the basis for social judgments”
So, Bona-sivilla smuggles the lies that 1, the colorblind ideology is not linked to progress in the race deconstruction of race. and 2 It is impossible to deconstruct race.
I wager BonaSivilla does this in the grand strategy of manufacturing apologa for racial essentialism by slandering efforts towards the deconstruction of race as…. racist & insincere…only concerned with the immediate effects..convienent enough for somebody who ignores time as a factor.
Yeah, Rory. I think the education system is a great example of where we see this kind of racism, and the examples you gave are particularly relevant. For example, old fashion racism would have been legally segregated schools, but colorblind racism would be white flight and informally segregated schools.
er, Admin,
try shorter me:
Protraying a colorblind approach as inconvertibly racist is a defense of ‘old fashioned racism’ in so far as such a protrayal perpetuates the social signifigance of race.
sailorman said, “Passivity used to be neutral. In other words, if one didnt act either to change or maintain the status quo, one was probably not acting in a racist fashion because of ones passivity (might have been racist, or not, for other reasons).
Now, you seem to be claiming neutrality and passivity are racist (at least if one is white)?”
That’s a really good question/point. First, let me say that I think many forms of colorblind racism are fairly active For example, the video from the night clubs posted below; you should note that they never explicitly identify race as the reason the young men are refused entry. They instead rely on other nonracial factors (that are often correlated with race) such as the types of shoes the guys are wearing, etc.
Second, I would argue that one of the big problems with contemporary racism is that many people just sit back and watch discrimination occur, but feel no inclination to do anything about it. I’m part of the “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” point of view.
Racism theorists Joe Feagin, Hernan Vera, and Pinar Batur argue that there are three types of people in “racist rituals.” The officiants, who instigate the racist ritual; the acolytes, who assist the officiants; and passive participants who sit by idly and do not intervene. So in the club example, the people who created the policy of not admitting people of color are the officiants. This would probably be the club owners/managers. The bouncers are the acolytes who help enforce the policy, and the white patrons who sit by and watch this happen without intervening are the passive participants. All of these groups contribute to the problem–club discrimination.
sailorman said, “Seems that all these definitions are essentially saying In order to avoid one of the many racist labels, you must actively work towards fixing the racial problems around you.
Is that right?”
Yes. I understand we can’t fight every battle every time, but nevertheless, not fighting racism does allow it to become more entrenched.
I would also add a little caveat by saying. I don’t expect everybody to go out into the streets and protest. At the very least people need to acknowledge that racism is real and harmful (primarily to people of color), and they should try to confront cases of racism that they see in their daily lives.
Student X,
I think your confusing the relationship between essentialism and social constructionism. Essentialism is primarily rooted in a biological notion of race–especially distinct racial categories. Just because one believes in social construction doesn’t mean that the person has to think that race is not real. I think race is real, but it is not real in a biological sense.
Nevertheless, we do find ourselves in a difficult situation because we are basically saying in order to challenge racism we have to acknowledge race. Some others say the only way to get rid of racism is to get rid of race. I also don’t think we can get rid of race by using colorblindness–in large part because colorblindness is generally an insincere proposition.
I believe that racism has decreaced its power over most
African Americans and that self destruction is the main
enemy to Black people in the world. Dose that make
me a colorblind racist? By self destruction I mean Unwed
pregnacy, AIDES( a mostly preventable disease), Unemployment
when the want ads are filled with jobs Mcdonalds Wallmart ect.
drug abuse and other criminal activity. All these problems
seem to not allow racism to be the main factor and these
are the main problems in the African American Community.
Has not racism become a lesser factor and self destruction
the main enemy of my people Black people in America?
Is not the presence of increaced interracial marriages
one sighn that racism is diminishing?
I do not believe that racism is a non factor because I know
that it is still powerful but cannot it be said to have
been reduced, at least in the USA?
Interracial power!
Student X,
I mean/t racial essentialism as organization on the basis of race, justifications aside-biological, social constructionist or whatever.
Not to mention, surly biological justifications of racism did not emerge until the 18th century wheras it’s social construction goes back to the 17th..so I don’t get where you are coming from with the ‘biological’ angle.
We agree/d that race is real and has been since its construction. It wouldn’t need to be deconstructed if it were not, yes?
Knee-jerk or tactical colorblindness is insincere. But I’m speaking of colorblindness as an effect of antiracist thought and action. Certianly the colorblindness of Jose Marti, in his words; “This is not the century of struggle of races but rather the century of the affirmation of rights” is being slandered as proactive incinscere and racist by Eduardo Bona-sivilla and others.
Besides, let’s say that the ‘it looks ok on paper but doesn’t work in reality’ argument to bona-sivillias ability to judge the sincerity of collorblindness, his argument self destructs.
how is “basically saying in order to challenge racism we have to acknowledge race” merly a “difficult situation” here admin?.
B/c right now it seems that some are manufacturing pretexts to keep acknowledging race while slandering those who try to stop them (most likely meddling kids)
Nevertheless, we do find ourselves in a difficult situation because we are basically saying in order to challenge racism we have to acknowledge race. Some others say the only way to get rid of racism is to get rid of race. I also dont think we can get rid of race by using colorblindnessin large part because colorblindness is generally an insincere proposition.
ok..the formatting is killing me…, its a monster at this point
.
to rephrase..again :
admin: Student X,
I think your confusing the relationship between essentialism and social constructionism. Essentialism is primarily rooted in a biological notion of raceespecially distinct racial categories. Just because one believes in social construction doesnt mean that the person has to think that race is not real. I think race is real, but it is not real in a biological sense.
I mean/t racial essentialism as organization on the basis of race, justifications aside-biological, social constructionist or whatever.
Not to mention, surly biological justifications of racism did not emerge until the 18th century wheras its social construction goes back to the 17th..so I dont get where you are coming from with the biological angle.
We agree/d that race is real and has been since its construction. It wouldnt need to be deconstructed if it were not, yes?
admin: Nevertheless, we do find ourselves in a difficult situation because we are basically saying in order to challenge racism we have to acknowledge race. Some others say the only way to get rid of racism is to get rid of race. I also dont think we can get rid of race by using colorblindnessin large part because colorblindness is generally an insincere proposition.
Knee-jerk or tactical colorblindness is insincere. But Im speaking of colorblindness as an effect of antiracist thought and action. Certianly the colorblindness of Jose Marti, in his words; This is not the century of struggle of races but rather the century of the affirmation of rights is being slandered as proactive incinscere and racist by Eduardo Bona-sivilla and others.
Besides, lets say that the it looks ok on paper but doesnt work in reality argument to bona-sivillias ability to judge the sincerity of collorblindness, his argument self destructs.
so, Im curioushow is basically saying in order to challenge racism we have to acknowledge race merly a difficult situation here admin?.
B/c right now it seems that some are manufacturing pretexts to keep acknowledging race while slandering those who try to stop them (most likely meddling kids)
Mike Reynolds,
Aren’t you lleaving out the part about mixed race children being much more beautiful and better than black children??? Yet another reminder that people in interracial marriages are just as racist as they come.
Rachel, I’m calling racist troll on this one…
>Yet another reminder that people in interracial marriages are just as racist as they come.
Hey Sewere, wait – SOME people in IR marriages, darn it
Not all of us!
My bad Lyonside, thinking faster than I was writing (inser duh! emoticon here)…I meant to say some people and I should now better being in one myself…
I actually don’t think reynolds is in an interracial relationship because I’ve never heard anyone exalt interracial relationships as the solution to racism the way he does…
Oh well, on to better things… Have a great weekend folks…
You know what else makes me suspicious about Mike–all of his posted are truncated, the carriage return is off. Makes me wonder if he’s cutting and pasting.
I believe that the very idea of “race” is inherently racist. Academic citations that led me to this belief are Audrey Smedley’s (1999) book “Race in North America”, Theodore Allen’s (1994; 1997) books “Invention of the White Race” in addition to a course and a well-argued Association of Black Sociologists newsletter essay by Noel Cazenave appeared in 2004 using direct and explicit language supporting this idea.
The concept of “race” is an invention. It was not invented for any happy purpose–it is neither a compliment nor even an accurate description of human skin color. Smedley calls it “non-transcendable social distance”. It was originally invented for purposes of social control with the aim of separating poor European-American indentured servants from African-American slaves and indentured servants after a series of rebellions in the VA colony. It later served to reinforce ideas about people of African-descent during slavery times, Jim Crow and today. “Race” is also used to oppress other people of color including “American Indians”, “Asian”-Americans, and Latino/as.
Before this time, if you plucked say Shakespeare up out of England and transported him into 18th century Virginia or to the contemporary United States and asked him who the “black” and “white” people are, he could not tell you. You can find old letters sent from the West Indies or the American colonies to Europe from the 17 and early 18th century where the writer has to specify what exactly he or she means by “white” or “black” people because it was not self-evident before the widespread dissemination of sophisticated racist ideologies and their corresponding categories (themselves subject to shift dozens of times after their invention).
The fair-skinned Irish were not fully accepted as “white” until the end of the 19th century. They were called “smoked negroes” or “black irish”. Sometimes plantation owners would send an Irishman to do the more dirty and dangerous work for which that particular “white” man did not want to risk losing his slave.
Daniel O’Connell in Ireland called upon American Irish to become abolitionists because of their experiences with racism in Ireland. When they did not and instead opted for membership in the “white race”, he no longer recognized them as Irish.
You will never destroy highly organized systemic white racism without getting rid of “racial” categories. Does this make me a color-blind racist? No. The only way to truly understand systemic white racism is to understand the myth of “race”. If you accept the reality of racial categories then you have accepted an ideological construction that is inherently racist.
To the extent that we live in a racist society–”race” matters. There is no doubt that it does. We do not live in a color-blind society, we live in a society systemically designed around the idea of “race”. To believe in “racial” categories without understanding that they are a myth designed to support white supremacy, then you have fallen into the hands of white supremacy.
I burned my tribal enrollment card as a member of the “white race” in 2005. I am not “white”, I am a European-American. However, doing so does not stop me from benefiting from accumulated and contemporary white privilege. Thus, my atonement centers on destroying white supremacy to the extent possible in my lifetime.
Tom said,
“You will never destroy highly organized systemic white racism without getting rid of racial categories. Does this make me a color-blind racist? No. The only way to truly understand systemic white racism is to understand the myth of race. If you accept the reality of racial categories then you have accepted an ideological construction that is inherently racist.”
There are many people who believe that race is inherently racist, and in many ways I agree with that, but I’m also leary of many of the attempts to get rid of racial categories because they end up in policies like the racial privacy intiative promoted by Ward Connerly. So I guess I’m saying that I think some attempts to get rid of racial categories are more about reforming race than they are about eradicating race/racism. This is where colorblind racism comes into play because in places like France and Brazil they will swear they have no race. In fact, it is illegal for the govt. to measure race in France, but they are still a very racist county, in the colorblind sort of way.
So my question would be how can we go about eradicating race without falling into a French/Brazilian model where race is everywhere and nowhere? In other words, how do we get rid of racism without being racist?
Tom,
I guess this is where I use the alcoholism analogy. The first step in AA is to acknowledge the problem, but we can’t get rid of the problem without acknowledging it first.
Although I suppose we could get rid of alcholism by getting rid of alcohol.
I’m getting a little off topic, but I do think this is a difficult issue that anti-racist practice.
“Is not the presence of increaced interracial marriages
one sighn that racism is diminishing?”
Interracial marriages are no longer illegal, hence the possible rise.
Admin said :
Racism theorists may disagree with each other about whether or not these three termscolorblind racism, symbolic racism, and laissez faire racismare capturing different concepts, and they also likely disagree over which idea best captures contemporary discrimination.There are also some very important methodological differences betweenthe researchers who use the term colorblind racism and those who use symbolic racism or laissez faire racism
In other words, this is not empirical science. These are theories which can’t be measured concussively. Even those in the field have varying opinions. Although many of these theories have similar components to those I studied when I was in college in the early 80’s , many conclusions have changed . I think it is safe to say that there will be other opinions by social scientists 20 years from now.
So what you have are varying new notions of racism which do not rise to the level of fact.
Admin also said :
Theyargue that laissez faire racism involves three key elements persistent negative stereotyping of African Americans, opposition to policies to improve the conditions of African Americans, and a tendency to blame African Americans for the persistent gap in socio-economic standing.
I have several problems with the other categories of what some social scientist call various forms of racism but will just mention the problem I have with that stated above.
ANY negative stereotyping of a group is Racism by definition. It qualifies based on the meaning of the term.
Another interesting component about what is written above is that it deals only with African Americans .Notice , Stereotyping of African Americans ,opposition to policies to improve the conditions of African Americans, and a tendency to blame African Americans for the persistent gap in socio-economic standing.
Libertarians would acknowledge that the first example constitutes obvious Racism. However, one need not be a Racist to oppose policies which favor one group. In fact, a cogent argument can be made that it is, in fact overtly racist. The third is another perfect example of overt Racism. It places blame based soley on Race . That being said , one could argue that it is simply a wrong assumption . As you recall , I proved that Black women and Asian women with college degrees earn MORE than do White women .Simply lumping all three together is a clever way to misrepresent non-racist opinions . I could deconstruct many of the other arguments of what constitutes Racism while also acknowledging that a few of them are actually overt examples as the word is defined
When discussing racism one needs to stick to its actual definition. One can also discuss theories as to how racism works in various societies. For instance, some very well meaning people are overtly racist and do things with good intentions. We saw this recently with comments made by a few politicians.
Although I realize that racism is still alive in our society, I find that many instances which are assumed to be matters of racism are actually the result of class issues. I realize that my social circle is not indicative of society as a whole. However, the fact that
my circle was able to evolve as it did is in marked contrast to that of my parents. I mentioned earlier that I am married a woman of mixed race and had a child with her. We also adopted 2 daughters from China. But we hardly stand out as unique among our friends.
Not lost on me is the fact that these minority couples are all very well off and well educated. One friend who is Cuban has three children at the very best schools. Although wealthy and brilliant, they get favored treatment because they are a minority. While one might argue that this diversity is needed it actually locks out many people who are disadvantaged. My kids share the same advantage. They are attending or will attend the very best schools. They have every asset at their disposal as well as two parents who can teach the practical matters of handling money etc. (not a small perk)
So while I can respect the social science behind studies of racism, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that today’s notion may evolve into something quite different. Just in my lifetime, common assumptions in the field of anthropology have become quaint .
Is not the presence of increaced interracial marriages
one sighn that racism is diminishing?
It depends on the “type” of IR marriages you are talking about.
Interracial marriages between:
-black men and white women
-black men and Latina women
-black men and Asian women
-black men and Native American women
-white men and Asian women
-white men and Latina women
-white men and Native American women
-white men and black women
If IR marriages are increasing due to the striking down of anti-miscegenation laws, then how can the prevalence of high numbers of BM/WW marriages be explained, as to the low number of WM/BW marriages? Ergo, there are more black men married to white women than there are white men married to black women.
Since black women tend to be more middle-class than black men (e.g., 80% more black women than black men in grad schools, and more black women attending college obtaining ungergraduate degrees), should there be more white husband-black wife marriages? But, of course, in 2007 there are approximately 2.5 times more black husband-white wife marriages, than there are white husband-black wife marriages.
Why?
What factors lead to more black men being married to white women, as opposed to more white men being married to black women?
Black women who are highly educated, of good moral character/values/background who bring much to the table as suitable marriage partners?
Sailorman said,
Nah dude you don’t get to do your drive by and not get taken to task. Once again you use the oh so well worn “reverse racism” claim to malign Affirmative Action while completetly forgetting that there many other programs that benefit white folks (Legacy, Title IX games. that are predominantly played by white students, even contracts that are supposed to target minorities are still lacking.)… You don’t get to make claims by picking only those facts that support your argument and discarding the ones that do not….
In other news,
Growing up in a Nigeria were social interaction was less mitigated by race
I used to be a naive believer in the need to affirm my humanity by NOT choosing race on forms… Experience and some history helped me get over that pretty darn and quick too.. For me the issue of colorblind ideology is that it purports to forget that history is still living out today, (even though we can all repeat the “race is socially constructed” mantra until we’re one with the universe) that people’s concept of race continues to mediate every day interaction, influencing basic necessitities and opportunities such that the distribution of resources are skewed… Denying that the concept of race exists and that it impacts people of all colors in different ways is intellectually dishonest (a la Connerly) and eventually destructive to the goal of addressing and alleviating the root causes of racism..
And now to get some much needed sleep
[...] Colorblind Racism vs. Old Fashioned Racism – Rachels Tavern “Social scientists have coined the term colorblind racism to refer to what is likely the most common type of racism in contemporary America. Colorblind theorists start from the idea that racism in contemporary America differs from racism of earlier eras. (tags: racism) Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Michael.
“s you recall , I proved that Black women and Asian women with college degrees earn MORE than do White women .”
Where did you prove this? I remember this particular thread from monhs ago, and I did not see where you proved that black women out-earned white women. I even asked you what types of jobs/fields were held by black women where they outearned white women.
And you never answered my question, nor showed proof that black women held jobs where they were not only paid commensurate for their skills with their chosen profession, but you produced no evidence where dollar for dollar, a black woman, say, who had an engineering job (civil, structural, mechanical, etc.) with the exact same skills, capabilities, nd experience, made more than a white woman.
I am still waiting on your proof that black women outearn white women.
Ann , if you revisit the thread you will find that Rachel was equally suprised and looked at the figures .Here is the start of her thread :
http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=35
Some time during all of the time that the Duke rape scandal first erupted there was an interesting exchange in the comments section on my blog. A reader linked to this article, which includes the following quote:
Black and Asian women with bachelors degrees earn more money than similarly educated white women, and white men with four-year degrees still make more money than anyone else . rachel supplied the facts from the 2004 census
Here is another article which might help you .
Black, Asian women with college degree outearn white women
By Genaro C. Armas
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Black and Asian women with bachelor’s degrees earn slightly more than similarly educated white women, and white men with four-year degrees make more than anyone else.
Barbara Gault, Research Director at the Washington-based Institute for Women’s Policy Research, explains that research in this area is limited, making it difficult to pinpoint the specific reasons minority women out earn white women. Gault adds that factors such as the occupations educated black women pursue or the important role black women play in the total family income impact the discrepancy.
Income Levels:
The average earnings in 2003 for male and female workers with a bachelor’s degree, according to the Census Bureau.*
Women
Men
White
$37,761
$66,390
Black
$41,066
$45,635
Asian
$43,646
$52,508
Hispanic
$37,550
$49,298
All
$38,447
$63,084
*Figures do not include those with advanced or professional degrees as well.
SOURCE: Associated Press
Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 28, 2005
So the facts are clear . Black college educated women earn more than White women with the same education . You can formulate all sorts of opinions as to why this is the case . But the facts stand .
Ann said :
I am still waiting on your proof that black women outearn white women
Ann, please do not distort what I said . I stated “… proved that Black women and Asian women with college degrees earn MORE than do White women .
That is an important distinction.
Michael,
If you look at the data for working year-round, white women make more than black. White women often work part-time so that data is not accurate. Black women work year-round more often than white women.
Sewere said,
I was under the impression that Title X had to do with gender participation and not race. It seems to me that Title X benefits white women at the expense of white men. Womens sports such as soccer and field hockey vs. mens sports like wrestling.
I could be wrong.
I totally agree with you about “legacy” admissions. Unfortunately, legacy admissions help ensure big money donations from benefactors, which benefits education in general.
I am against affirmative action on principle (I believe that affirmative action is the least effective method of addressing disparities, especially compared to education reform), but there is an argument to be made that affirmative action would be justified to counter the effects of legacy admissions.
Of course the big loosers continue to be high achieving Asian Americans. They are negatively effected by legacy admissions and affirmative action.
In other words, black women work more than white women so of course white women make less money. I forget where Asian women stand when the hours are equal.
No Donna . This is exactly why I wrote :
So the facts are clear . Black college educated women earn more than White women with the same education . You can formulate all sorts of opinions as to why this is the case . But the facts stand
You are trying to formulate a reason as to why White women with degrees earn less than blacks with Degrees . One theory Liberals have tried to use to explain this away is that White women with degrees have less pressure to be the bread winner since they are often married to White men. It’s a weak argument at best and destined to be even weaker in the future . WHy ? because college educated White and Black women earn more than White men when you compare graduate AFTER 1978.
If you look at the percentages of men compared to women who graduated from college back in the 1940’s , 50′ and 60’s you will see that men far outnumber women . Hence the reason men earn so much more . THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE WORKFORCE MUCH LONGER . It makes sense that they would hold the highest positions in companies .We saw women start to make gains in the 60’s , 70’s and 80’s . Government
agencies began to make a strong push for women and minorities in the 80’s . The result is that most of the men are retiring from those jobs now and have been replaced by … WOMEN ! The trend has continued .
Now we actually come to a time when WOMEN OUTNUMBER MEN in college graduation and admissions .The numbers are even greater when you look at grad schools . So women will soon outnumber men in
most fields requiring a college degree .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm
College gender gap widens: 57% are women
By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY
In May, the Minnesota Office of Higher Education posted the inevitable culmination of a trend: Last year for the first time, women earned more than half the degrees granted statewide in every category, be it associate, bachelor, master, doctoral or professional.
You missed the most important part of your article:
“For one thing, female inequities persist. There’s still a pay gap. According to the Census Bureau, women on average earned 77 cents to each dollar paid to male counterparts in 2004.”
Fret not, paranoid white male. Economic outcomes and promotions are much more significant than who’s in school. You missed the article in this month’s California Lawyer Magazine, “Law firms are in a crisis: Female associates are leaving at an alarming rate, while the number of women partners remains stagnant. Here’s why”. It doesn’t matter who’s in school. Asian Americans by far have the most bachelor’s and PhD degrees in the US and should make much more than white men and women but they don’t because of racism and stereotypes. Finally, you failed to look at the data for working year-round which is the most accurate measure of how much everyone’s worth in the labor force. Alot of white women work part time. Year-round data assumes everyone works the same number of hours a year and that is the best way to measure how much everyone earns per hour.
Blogged this tonight at Body Impolitic. And thank you!!
[...] The night I came up with the language, I was at a small dinner party where one of the hosts suddenly asked my Caribbean-American friend, “Do you know X?” [X is another woman of color in the subculture we all share. The only reason her name could possibly have come into the conversation was the host’s semi-desperate throw to make “the right” kind of conversation with his woman-of-color guest.] I expect he was a) hoping that this would make his guest feel more welcome, and b) wanting to establish some kind of credibility with her–after all, he knows another woman of color! His remark was completely “racialized,” in the sense that he never would have made it to a white guest. At the same time, it was not “racist” in the sense of intending harm or even necessarily thinking less of his guest than he might have otherwise. I know I’ve made similar gaffes. Tonight, I found Rachel’s piece on “colorblind racism,” closely related to “laissez-faire racism” and “symbolic racism,” and the jigsaw puzzle of these issues falls much much closer to a clear picture. [...]
For college graduates working year-round
1. White men 100%
2. Asian men 92%
3. Latino men 77%
4. Black men 76%
5. Asian women 74%
6. White women 70%
7. Black women 62%
8. Latina women 61%
Rachel did a detailed study about this.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/05/26/do-black-women-earn-more-than-white-women/
When you compare similarly situated women and the gap between White women and Black women reverses, so White women in this position are earning more. The table also shows that this holds true for those women with a high school education.
So what is going here? The explanation is actually simple. White women are more likely to be out of the labor force or in the labor force part time. This is largely because White women are frequently married to White men, who are the highest earners. White mens much higher incomes make it feasible for White women to be less connected to the labor force, compared to Black women.
Black women are not fairing as well as White women when it comes to their financial situation, and this difference cannot be explained away by the higher rate of single parenthood or lower level of education. When Black women and White women have similar levels of education and a similar position in the labor force (full-time, part time, or unemployed ), White women earn more (I actually did look up income for unemployed women, and unemployed White women do have more income coming in.). Unfortunately, the AP report mentioned in the beginning of this article failed to take account of the fact that many college educated White women are working part time or are taking time out of the work force, especially if they have a White male partner who is a high earner. This case is a prime example of how statistics can be misleading. Many people who read that article are probably convinced that Black women are truly fairing better in the job market than White women, but it is not so.
Rachel said:
Thats a really good question/point. First, let me say that I think many forms of colorblind racism are fairly active For example, the video from the night clubs posted below; you should note that they never explicitly identify race as the reason the young men are refused entry. They instead rely on other nonracial factors (that are often correlated with race) such as the types of shoes the guys are wearing, etc.
Second, I would argue that one of the big problems with contemporary racism is that many people just sit back and watch discrimination occur, but feel no inclination to do anything about it. Im part of the if youre not part of the solution, youre part of the problem point of view.
That clears things up quite a bit.
I thought it was pretty obvious that there was considerable racism in the nightclub videos. But i don’t think that was “colorblind” racism That was plain old Jim Crow racism–just like the “voting requirements” applied to blacks only (I remember the story of one guy who was asked to read something in Japanese…).
Someone was acting differently towards someone because they were black. Ergo, not colorblind. Do you think this analysis is wrong?
I think what this article is saying is that the concept of colorblindness is itself racist…?
Donna said :
February 12, 2007 @ 4:19 am
You missed the most important part of your article:
For one thing, female inequities persist. Theres still a pay gap. According to the Census Bureau, women on average earned 77 cents to each dollar paid to male counterparts in 2004.
Fret not, paranoid white male. Economic outcomes and promotions are much more significant than whos in school
No, Donna, I didn’t miss the point of this article or any other I listed. I read Rachel’s theory and understand it completely. I simply disagree with it. As I said twice in this thread, you have FACTS which I listed and then you have OPINIONS as to what the facts mean.
As for the pay gap, I clearly stated my opinion as to why it exists. The pay gap is shrinking as older men with higher salaries retire. I won’t repeat them as they are clearly stated in my post.
As for your disgusting insult stated here:
Donna said:
Fret not, paranoid white male. Economic outcomes and promotions are much more significant than whos in school .
Paranoid White male? Can’t you do better than that? When a person
confronts you with reason and facts which you don’t like you see the need to insult? That is not the way an adult should act.
Trying to dismiss the impact of education on earnings is ridiculous. Do you really think the fact that men outnumbered women in college for decades had no impact on the
earnings gap between the two groups? Do you really think the fact that those numbers are now reversed with women graduating at higher numbers and attending graduate schools at even even higher rates has no great effect on the shrinking of the gap ? The facts don’t fit the conclusion you want so you simply ignore them .That is very poor science .
As an aside, I left home at 16 and joined the Marines as a reserve. I bootstrapped a few hundred dollars into 5 furniture stores, a triple Decker in Cambridge and about a half million dollars in the bank BEFORE I attended college. I got no advantage for being a “privileged ” White male. I put myself through school without any help from my parents or any aid from the government. Once I left school I went into commercial building, owning and operating a variety of retail stores, and investment capital.
Many of my White nephews and nieces did come from wealthy families although they started out either poor or lower middle class. All have done very well. One nephew is graduating from Georgetown law school this spring and has several good job offers.
I have no doubt that my own children will excel either. My son is multiracial and my two daughters are Asian. They are the most privileged children you might imagine. Earlier I discussed my Cuban friend who has three daughters. His worth exceeds 40 million dollars. Yet his children are classified as minorities. I have never been that so called “privileged ” White for which you seem to have so much disdain. I just look at the facts. Also, I have no problem with women making more money than men if they earn it by working harder or smarter. I see people as individuals first.
Michael, you had white privilege and male privilege but not class privilege as you grew up poor. And pulled yourself up by your bootstraps or whatever. A poor minority female in the same situation would have had systemic sexism and racism to deal with in addition to classism. It’s great you succeeded but it probably helped that you didn’t additionally have to deal with institutionalized sexism or racism. Institutionalized sexism and racism are facts you cannot ignore. Society has biases against women, minorities and the poor. I said you’re a paranoid white male because of the tone of the article you posted that said OMG all these women are getting degrees and men are going to be left behind. In reality, the old boys network, knowing who you know or men helping each other out, is all men need to succeed. A great example of this is the administration. No qualifications needed. Just connections. This is how business and politics work today. The old boys network.
The old boys network is one of the main reasons men don’t push themselves in school. They know they have an uncle or family friend who will let them run the business or store regardless of education. Women on the other hand know degrees don’t guarantee anything. There are glass ceilings for women and minorities. Only 1% of discrimination cases are “reverse racism” so they are individual cases whereas sexism and racism are institutional or systemic. But these individual cases are used to deny the existence of institutionalized sexism and racism.
Micheal said,
And do you think those were the ONLY reasons why men outnumbered women in earning gaps? What about a society that didn’t allow women to vote for many centuries? What about a society that didn’t allow women to even go to the same schools as men, enter the same academic careers, and enjoy the opportunities of employment as men? Cetainly things are somewhat better than they used to be but to say they got that way without a long sustained effort to end discrimination against women by promoting equal rights is just telling half-truths. I don’t think you were trying to hide these other facts, but the way you left that statement simply does not show the full picture.
But then you went ahead and said this,
No, your misquoting of data and your exclusion of facts is bad science. Do you really think that women have the same opportunities as men, even though they’re graduating at higher numbers and attending graduate school at hihger rates? Even in fields (such as public health and nursing) that have a large population of women (80% women in public health), the number of leadership positions overwhelmingly held by men (70% at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins and UCLA to name a few public health programs)… Now you’ve added insult to injury by insinuating that since more women are getting degress is all it takes to close the earning gap… I was going to talk about the glass cieling effect but Donna does a far better job than I could, so I’ll leave things here.
OK, on to the task taking.
First, screw that “malign” shit. I’m not talking about, or maligning, AA–though I will discuss it if you care to, it’s an interesting topic.
What I was talking about is the odd tendency of some folks to deny reality. Perhaps you’re one of them. I am a reality fan myself.
Do legacies benefit whites? Yup. See, that was easy! Of course, unlike some AA programs, they’re facially neutral. The issue then goes back to that whole facially equivalent/factually different thing, which is legally interesting but a bit of a side track.
I have no problem acknowledging those facts. Do you? Or do you subscribe to the “there exist no instances of discrimination against whites” claim?
Donna says “!%” above… sure, it’s probably 1% at most, could be a lot less. But the difference between Donna and Bonilla-silva is that Donna is honest, and the subject moves on.
This is a definite problem with the colorblind approach.
Of course, it also has its benefits. By teaching “it is a bad thing to treat people in a different fashion according to their race” colorblind ideology ALSO attacks some of the things which have caused racism.
Colorblind ideology is a general statement: “races should be treated equally”. IMO those general statements are more powerful than exception statements: “whites should _____ and blacks should ____ and…”
For example, the problem with a hypothetical claim that “blacks are entitled to ____ because they’re black” is that things never stop there. Once that claim is made, the one can no longer support the general proposition that “people should not be entitled to shit because of their skin color.”
So in my view, that claim actually opens the door to more racism, not less: it removes a GENERAL prohibition on taking race into account. If there are situations where I’m allowed to prefer blacks, there are sure to be situations where I”m allowed to prefer whites–it’s a big world, after all. And the argument against such preference is no longer a nice, clear, one line, obvious “no racism” response. Now, it’s a convoluted response involving privilege, status, etc etc… good for academics perhaps but shitty as a functional talking point.
Colorblind theory doesn’t forget that history exists. But neither does it forget the present. It believes that things like “government making big decisions about people based on race” are bad bad bad and to be avoided… but perhaps it’s just a different view of history.
Oh, screw “intellectual dishonesty”–it’s too often used as a way to avoid making an actual argument. And it floats both ways (see, e.g., AA coments above). Colorblind theory doesn’t deny that race exists, it claims there should be equal treatment of all races. It’s a pretty important difference.
“If you look at the percentages of men compared to women who graduated from college back in the 1940s , 50? and 60s you will see that men far outnumber women . Hence the reason men earn so much more . THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE WORKFORCE MUCH LONGER . It makes sense that they would hold the highest positions in companies .We saw women start to make gains in the 60s , 70s and 80s .”
Michael, are you aware of what you are saying?
What men are you speaking of?
During the 30s, 40s, and 50s black men were kept out of lucrative and highly skilled jobs/trades/crafts throughout a large portion of the last century, due to segregation in the South, and de jure discrimination in the North. Black men were not allowed into apprenticeship levels at union-type jobs, not only thoughout the American South, but throughout the rest of America.
Unable to obtain entrance into apprenticeship/entry-level jobs, black men could not work their way up the ladder to the level of Journeyman, and therefore, were not abe to obtain Master level (Master electrician, Master carpentry, Master millwork, etc.)
For decades, black men were kept out of these skilled trades and unions, and as a result of this blatant discrimination, black men had a lot of economic time to make up, time which was not made up UNTIL the enactment of the Civil Rights Law of 1964 which forbade the practices of discrimination in employment, trade/union crafts, and other skilled work, especially union jobs.
Because of this systemic discrimination that went on for decades, black men are STILL behind white men in economic disparity. (Let’s not even begin to include how far black women are behind in these same types of trade skills. If it was hard enough for a black man to get into a union skill job, it would have been a living hell for a black woman attempting to do the same in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.)
Only with the enactment of the Civil Rights law forbiding job discrimination, were black men in THE 1960s able to start a race to play catch up after so many years of being shut-out of high-paying jobs.
Even the black men who did obtain college degrees during the 30s, 40s, and 50s, were not allowed the chance to put their college educations to use. Barred from jobs at major laws firms, major manufacturing companies, pharmaceutical firms, major hospitals, etc., many black men had to suffer not just from the indiginity of having to work menial jobs (janitors, sanitation work, lawn/yard work, etc.), but also the indignity of having to work jobs that none of them attended college for. Many black men who went to college had to take what work they could to help their families survive.
Not live. But, to survive.
“Hence the reason men earn so much more . THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE WORKFORCE MUCH LONGER .”
Like I asked, which men are you speaking of?
Also, remember, during slavery black men (and black women) WORKED FOR FREE, so where was all of this money that black men earned during slavery? According to you, MEN “have been in the workforce much longer, hence the reason men earn some much more.” I’m sure those black men who worked during slavery will be very happy to hear that.
Not to mention the black men who worked at menial jobs during Jim Crow segregation, who were some way able to make loads and loads of money ($5-10 a day) doing jobs which by today’s standards did not even pay minimum wage earnings. And add to the fact that black men were kept out of high paying jobs, OR not employed by white men/white companies at all, this put a tremendous and uncalled for burden on black women who had to go out and work also at menial labor jobs (domestic, laundresses, child-care/wet-nurses, etc.) just to help the black family eke out a living.
Yes, black women have been working in this country ever since we set foot in it. And we have worked not because we WANTED to, but because we HAD to. With white society not allowing black men full gainful employment, nor opportunities to obtain higher wages through jobs that black men were skilled and capable of doing, black men and black women have both HAD to work. There is no large history of black women being able to sit at home eating Bon-Bons watching TV because her black husband was able to earn a decent salary to allow her to:
1. Not have to go out and work at two or more jobs just to make ends meet
2. Not being able to be a SAHM, the way so many white women have been able to do, and STILL are able to do.
“It makes sense that they would hold the highest positions in companies.”
Once again, which “they” are you speaking of? White men who have had the most lucrative, highest-paying jobs, or, black men, who have had the most menial of jobs to try and make a living off of meager wage earnings AND support their families?
If you are going to make statements such as your comments about men in the workforce, it would behoove you to elucidate upon WHICH group of men you speak.
White families have benefitted from job protection for white men for decades, and the black family is still trying to recover from this decades long denial of economic parity.
And white men STILL benefit from centuries, and decades of economic violence against black men AND black women.
And Michael, watch your tone when you respond to questions put forth to you. Your condescending contemptuous attitude is neither called for nor warranted.
Sewere & Lyonside
When I said that the presence of IR’s is one sighn that
Racisim is being reduced I meant that it is one good sighn.
I did not say that it would solve everything. I resent being
called a racist but then again in many peoples opinion
everyone is a racist. I am as upset about all the inequalies in
America and the world twards people of color as you youselfs
are. I like to point out that Family Intergration makes a
difference. My wife of 16 years is White our 2 children mixed
and Black. My adopted Daugter who is just as cute as my
mixed son is African American like myself.
You did not address my point that things are improving
but instead you went to namecalling. I still like your
post on this sight and I am a fan of all the regular posters
here. I am new to the internet and still learning.
Ann
From my study of the subject of interracial marriage I believe
that before the sixtys there was a greater percentage of
Black woman White man combinations and during some
years in the recent past that combination outnubers
Black man White woman pairs. Many Black women that I have
been aquainted with and in my family do not consider many
White men attractive. That might be some of the reason
for the disparity. It certainly dose not explain everything
about the subject. There being nearly 2 to 1 Black women
in colledge to Black men today I forsee great changes
in that catigory for the future. I will teach my daughter
to look for whoever is a great person who shares our family
values.
Mike Reynolds.
“From my study of the subject of interracial marriage I believe
that before the sixtys there was a greater percentage of
Black woman White man combinations and during some
years in the recent past that combination outnubers
Black man White woman pairs.”
What study did you engage in on interracial marriage? Where are your results, data, evidence?
What “combinations” do you speak of? White men shacking up with black women without benefit of marriage OR white men MARRIED to black women? My question addressed MARRIAGE of white men to black women. And I did not ask of past illicit relations between white men who did not marry black women. If it is now legal for a white man to marry a black woman, where as during segregation he could not honor her with benefit of marriage, my question remains the same. Why, and if I may add since there is no reason for a white man to live with a black woman without benefit of marriage since the anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967, are there still more black men married to white women than white men married to black women?
Keep in mind, marriage is the key word. White men during Jim Crow segregation, overwhelmingly DID NOT marry black women due to racist anti-miscegenation laws. With the restraints of anti-miscegenation laws abolished, what is stopping white men from marrying back women in 2007 America?
” Many Black women that I have
been aquainted with and in my family do not consider many
White men attractive. ”
Black women do not consider white men attractive in appearance? Behaviour? How white men approach black women? How white men treat black women while dating black women?
Donna Darko.
Your comments and your understanding of the threads Rachel put up is commendable.
SALUTARE.
Ann said :
And Michael, watch your tone when you respond to questions put forth to you. Your condescending contemptuous attitude is neither called for nor warranted
Right back at you Ann. My tone is always more respectful than that shown toward me.
You state it is not warranted? Yet comments like this are accepted?
Donna said:
“Fret not, paranoid white male”
This is typical of insults tossed my way. This is the old cheap stereotype used on anyone who does not accept your version of things. I refrain from that same type of garbage.
Oh, and one more thing, Michael.
No more anecdotes about your white male privilege, family history and the racial ancestry/makeup of your children, family members, etc.
None of that bears on the discussion of this topic.
Please stick with the topic/discussion at hand.
It would be most appreciated.
Thank you.
Ann said,
February 12, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
If you look at the percentages of men compared to women who graduated from college back in the 1940s , 50? and 60s you will see that men far outnumber women . Hence the reason men earn so much more . THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE WORKFORCE MUCH LONGER . It makes sense that they would hold the highest positions in companies .We saw women start to make gains in the 60s , 70s and 80s .
Michael, are you aware of what you are saying?
What men are you speaking of?
Yes, Ann, I am aware of exactly what I am saying. You went on to make all sorts of observations about racism which have nothing to do with my point. I never suggest that Black men were not disadvantaged as a result of all the things you listed. I made a very simple and easy to understand comment. Instead of trying to mischaracterize what I said just deal with the actual statement.
Michael clearly stated:
If you look at the percentages of men compared to women who graduated from college back in the 1940s , 50′ and 60s you will see that men far outnumber women
If I had meant to make a distinction about a group of men or women I would have done exactly that. I’m simply making a comparison between men and women in this sentence. The same goes for women. So Black men would be included with the White men and Black women would be included in women. thus, Again, I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
So the men I am talking about are mostly White males but also include black and other males. The women are mostly White women but include women of other races as well.
For example, The Black father of the ex-lover I had who is about to retire from CBS. Or the
Hispanic friend who will retire as director of a large hospital. Or the many more White males who graduated from college.
Ann , did you honestly not understand that I was comparing the pool of all men who graduated and contrasting that with the pool of women ? You then made the following remark that has nothing to do with what I said .
Ann said :
Also, remember, during slavery black men (and black women) WORKED FOR FREE, so where was all of this money that black men earned during slavery? According to you, MEN have been in the workforce much longer, hence the reason men earn some much more. Im sure those black men who worked during slavery will be very happy to hear that.
Ann, please tell me how that comment in any way refutes what I had to say concerning men and women graduating from college in the 1940’s 1950s and 1960s as contrasted with those of later years .It doesn’t . So Black men who worked durring slavery have nothing to do with men who graduated from college in any of the years I mentioned .You can make all sorts of connections but they have nothing to do with the context of what I am saying .
Ann said,
February 12, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Oh, and one more thing, Michael.
No more anecdotes about your white male privilege, family history and the racial ancestry/makeup of your children, family members, etc.
None of that bears on the discussion of this topic.
Please stick with the topic/discussion at hand.
Ann I don’t write everything for you. I respond based on the actual comments in the thread. Do I need me to cut a paste the many anecdotal comments made by others concerning what THEY experience as racism? I suspect you are well aware. Also, it is more than fair to respond to accusations of being “privileged’ and “racist.”
Michael,
The USAToday article disguised the fact boy crises mostly affect poor and minority boys. Articles like that don’t make it clear that it’s not middle class white boys who are dropping out of school. White rural poor, poor Asians, blacks and Latinos are what they’re talking about. NCLB disadvantages poor and minority boys and girls.
No problem, Ann! If Michael and Mike et al took a couple race and ethnicity, inequality, or women’s studies college classes, they’d be surprised what they learn.
Donna said :
No problem, Ann! If Michael and Mike et al took a couple race and ethnicity, inequality, or womens studies college classes, theyd be surprised what they learn.
I graduated from University of Massachusetts Amherst with a bachelor’s degree in political science and history. The school was one of the most Liberal in the country. Almost every professor was left of center. Several were admitted socialists who told the students upfront that that was the perspective from which the course was taught. Any student in these majors in the early 80s took mostly the courses you describe. I learned a great deal about these theories but I just found them not to be very persuasive
Please don’t condescend to those who disagree with you. Many of us understand that facts as well or better than do you. We simply arrive at different conclusions.
Michael said, “Please dont condescend to those who disagree with you. ”
Michael, is turn about fair play? Because you routinely do this.
Ok, now let’s get back on track. This thread is moving way out from its intended prupose.
Admin , please read above . You will see that I was responding . It started with this .
Donna Darko said :
Fret not, paranoid white male. Economic outcomes and promotions are much more significant than whos in school
Perhaps you missed her first insult .I hope you will hold everyone to equal standards .
Back to the thread . After discussing this thread with my wife she asked me an interesting question .
When you teach a class, how do you deal with those who disagree with you in class. Assuming they have a complete understanding of all the facts and arrive at a different conclusion from yours.
Rachel, I apologize for the OT-ness – feel free to delete…
>Sewere & Lyonside
Mike Reymolds, I made one post on this particular thread (I checked), and it wasn’t addressed to YOU. So leave me out of this, please. As for “not addressing” your stance that IRs automatically improve things, I’ve addressed this on another thread.
On Topic:
I’ve been using “color-blind racism” to mean some different things, evidently, but I think I understnad the definitions – the only thing I’d love to change is the definition of racism as whites against blacks (Sears and Tarman’s technique) -the old dichotomy for me still doesn’t express what happens in diverse areas of the US, or the rhetoric in re: illegal immigration, or Asian stereotypes, etc.
This post about colorblind racism is very interesting. Referring to specifics in history, historical context and sociological facts counter this kind of racism. I noticed many black commenters at Racialicious are good at these specifics.
Alot of anti-feminists have a similar tack on feminist blogs. They say feminism is no longer necessary. Instead of asking why can’t we be one race the human race they ask why can we be humanists instead of feminists. At that point, feminists refer to specific histories and feminist facts.
Sailorman,
I’d love to respond to you, but nothing you have said has disproved my point… Your colorblindness argument shouldn’t matter, but then then there are programs that continue to exist that benefit certain races… However, you wave that aside as a sort of necessary evil. Universities have to make money, so what if the majority of legacy admits are white, (or for that matter the majority of AA beneficiaries are white women) whaddaygonnado? Fish gotta swim and birds gotta ride bicycless…
Addendum to my last….
Rachel, the research question for me here is how valid and reliable is the colorblind racism framework as an assessment tool at different levels of interaction? My concern is that it seems the framework is useful when explaining macro and meso level issues regarding social policy (government discrimination, employment discrimination etc) but when it comes to micro-level issues surrounding interpersonal interactions it seems that the information gathered is a little more unwieldy and may loose precision in telling the story…
Apologies for the jumbled comment and hope it all (sorta) makes sense.. If not, I’ll be happy to retract and revise…
Colorblind Racial Attitudes are also measured quantitatively. I work with this scale in large-scale quant research:
Neville, Helen A; Lilly, Roderick L; Duran, Georgia; Lee, Richard M; Browne, LaVonne. Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] Journal of Counseling Psychology. Vol 47(1) Jan 2000, 59-70. American Psychological Assn.
I don’t know about revision. But it’d be nice if you could stop attributing things to me that I don’t say. I realize it may be error; it may be standard “talking to white people” or whatever. But it gets sort of old,ya know?
so if you could stop this sort of bullshit:
“However, you wave that aside as a sort of necessary evil. Universities have to make money, so what if the majority of legacy admits are white, (or for that matter the majority of AA beneficiaries are white women) whaddaygonnado?”
I’d really appreciate it.
If you want to argue with an imaginary straw man, go ahead. Just don’t keep putting my name in the post.
Rachel.
One other aspect of colorblind racism is the statement that addresses colorblind racism in the dating game, especially when people use the hated term, “preference.”
As in: I’m with a white woman because that is my preference.”
That is why I asked Mike Reynolds why there are less WM/BW IRs as opposed to BM/WW IRs. If people are so “colorblind” they would see the person for the person that they are, other than the skin color that they are.
To say to a person, “I do not see color”, is a slap in the face of the non-white person.
How can you not see color? By making such a statement you are saying that you do not see that person’s history in this country, how this country’s racist policies have shaped that non-white person’s outlook on life or station in life.
“Color” and the social construct of race (racism) affects all of our lives some way or another.
And in the world of dating its effects can be very pernicious and devastating.
Which brings me to my comment to Mike Reynolds.
Many black women may be saying that white men are not attractive, BUT, that may be their way of lessening any effect of being marginalized out of the dating market because they feel that their beauty which has been devalued for so long is not appreciated by many men. For so long black women’s beauty has not been celebrated the way white women’s beauty has been, and many black women see this on a daily basis. They are not immune to this assault upon their integrity, their features, their attractiveness.
Which is why many black women respond like they do to Mike.
Black women know they are beautiful. But, when you live in a country that denigrates all things beautiful in black women, you can’t help but think that white men are “not attractive” because for so long white men have treated black women as things to be used and then thrown away. And many black women come away with the thought that they are not adored, cherished and admired by men of ALL races.
But, they are.
Mike.
Here is my response to your comment concerning black women not finding white men attractive.
“Many Black women that I have
been aquainted with and in my family do not consider many
White men attractive. That might be some of the reason
for the disparity. It certainly dose not explain everything
about the subject.”
And those black women who say they do not find white men attractive are flat-out lying to you.
They may be afraid to tell you truthfully how they feel, but, take my word for it, MOST of the black women I talk to find white men very attractive. And I’m not just talking looks.
Talk about colorblind racism.
For a black woman to say that she does not find a white man attractive is no different than saying she does not find a black man attractive.
Many black women are too afraid of what the black community will say if they say out loud that they find white men attractive. And it does not help that black women get on black message boards and forums and make comments such as the following:
“Nothing but a black man for me.”
“A white man cannot do anything for me.”
Oh, really?
And how, black woman do you know that if you do not give a white man in THE YEAR 2007 a chance? If that white man is interested in you?
So, if a white man will treat you (black female) decently, lovingly and with attentiveness, you are ready to spurn him just because of his race/skin color?
Yes, what white men of the past did was wrong and that is THEIR legacy that they have left behind. And white men of today are making THEIR own legacy as the future reveals itself to us as the years come upon us all.
I’ve said this before on Rachel’s blog, and I will say it again: How white men of today treat black women will speak to generations to come as their legacy that they leave behind.
Since there are no white men running around raping and destroying black women like the white men of the past and of my mother’s time, black women have to look at white men through “today’s eyes”, and not the past’s eyes. And on the other hand, white men will have to look at black women through today’s eyes, and not the racist eyes of white male America’s past. If a white man is interested in a black woman, remember she is not a mind reader. You will never know if you do not take a step forward, just like the black woman will never know if she does not take a step forward.
So, Mike Reynolds, you are saying that if a decent, respectful, gainfully employed white man came up to one of your female relatives and sought her out as a marriage companion she would be daft and would tell him to get lost?
If so, that would be a woman who is very…………..well, let’s just say I’m going to keep it clean.
There are many white men who are attractive and out-going. But, as long as black women make comments like the ones above, and especially if they continue to say that white men are not attractive, then guess what, the white men will not give them or any other black woman the time of day. And in the end, BOTH lose out.
Heck, I love MEN. Period. I do not limit myself to just black men. I do not limit myself to white men. I love men. I love the way they smile, the way they talk; the way they move; that angular, masculineness that only a man has.
I do not cut a man off just because of his race. Especially if he is respectful and kind to me. To do such a thing is not only offensive, it is downright stupid. Turning a man away because of his race is ludicrous. That is no better than a white man turning a black woman away because of her race.
You never know what type pf person you are dismissing, what type of blessing in disguise you are letting pass out of your life.
“Many Black women that I have
been aquainted with and in my family do not consider many
White men attractive.”
And like I said, those black women are lying to you. Many black women are afraid of what black men may think if they say out loud their true feelings, especially if the black man has a white woman swinging on his arms, while questioning a black woman’s love/desire for a white man.
“All for me, and none for you.”
That’s the message that has been sent by black men to black women as far as IRs are concerned, and especially if it concerns the love life of a black woman. And yes, it does not help that white-run America has crammed down EVERYONE’S throats the lie that white women are the most beautiful women in the world. They are not.
ALL WOMEN ARE BEAUTIFUL. And no one race of women holds a monopoly on beauty.
So, if black women think white men are not scouting them out, think again. Those white men are checking you out. Not all of them; but, some of them are.
But, if a black man is truly looking out for his black female relatives/friends, he will want the very best for them. And if that very best happens to be a non-black man, then be happy for her.
If ANY race of women have more than earned the right to happiness after all the hell we have caught in this country, and in this world, it is black women. And I for one am not for denying black women the joy, adoration and love that any man would want to give her.
Many black women come off with those inane statements because, let’s face facts Mike, they are saying what they think YOU want to hear, not what is truly in their hearts.
But, I will guarantee you, if you turn yourself into a little insect, and listen in on a group of black women sitting around and HONESTLY talking amongst themselves, you will hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Black women love and are attracted to white men just as they are black men. And there are black women attracted to Asian men. Latino men. Native American men.
MEN.
And that should come as no surprise to you Mike Reynolds, or any other man out there in America.
Heck, they are women, okay?
So, if you believe that foolishness that black women don’t find white men attractive, well, I’ve got a broken down sewage treatment plant I’d love to sell to you for $10 million.
Yeah, right. Black women do not find white men attractive my ass.
Oh, so I guess the following white men are NOT attractive:
Jackson Browne
Brad Pitt
Colin Ferrell
John Mayer
George Clooney
Matthew McConaughey
Johnny Depp
Prince Maximillian of Lichtenstein
Well, they are attractive to me.
And black women need to stop the mantras they are saying to you and any other black men out there.
They just need to fess up.
It’s okay to love, admire and be attracted to white men or any other non-black man. Just as it is okay for a white man to love, admire and be attracted to a black woman.
Afterall, at the end of the day, it’s not the color of the man’s skin that will keep you happy.
It’s how he treats you in the end that will truly matter.
MEN.
Gotta luv ‘em.
Chocolate (Black)…
Vanilla (White)…
Lemon Drops (Asian)…
Caramel (Latino)…
And all the other flavors that men come in.
Black women love men. But, I’m sure that they would appreciate reciprocity from ALL men.
Afterall, in the end a black woman is no different from a white, Latino, Asian, or any other woman out there in the world.
Reading through the comments some more- a side note:
As a white male, I have been discriminated against on an individual level, by another individual. I was mistrusted by a african american fellow due to my whiteness- and I cannot blame him for adopting that heuristic. However, I have never been oppressed in this country, because our Institutions (e.g. government, big business, religion, military, professional sports, education) are controlled by fellow white males. This individual discrimination that I experience from time to time is nothing compared to the oppression that those in the various minority groups (e.g. racial/ethnic, gender, religious, SES, sexual orientation, ability status) have experienced.
It is my job as a member of the dominant group to actively work towards challenging discrimination and oppression. When I see something go unchallenged, I am giving my implicit approval. There is no way around this incovenient truth.
Sailorman,
Nah dude, you misunderstand me… I honestly don’t care if you’re white, black or purple (now why does that sound so familiar?), what I do care about is your picking and using AA as an example for how tricky race-based social policy is (and I agree that they are tricky only in as much as energy is vested in it, but that’s another argument for another day) BUT you sort of left out the part that it exists alongside other programs that afford advantages to people who predominantly white (as if it was just a side benefit).
It was only after I pointed it out that you (sort of grudgingly) responded but then couched your response in an argument based on “what happens in theory vs. what happens in practice” where race-based programs (as if AA did not benefit Native Americans, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders, white and women AND to a lesser extent white men attending Historically Black Universities) are a bad thing but a colorblind policy (I argue) IN PRACTICE ignores the fact that there are programs that are just as race-based only this time it’s the unspoken majority who benefit… That is my argument against the fallacies of colorblind policies that almost always default to white…. It’s not about you (cos this is business not personal), it’s just about the countering the colorblind arguments (that recognizes some reality but not others) that are presented in this forum…
Ann Happy St.Vallentines Day
I am not a resercher and my statment about IR between Black
Women and White men being more numerous before the 60s
I don’t know remember where I found It but thanks to you
I am Searching and I want to get back to you on that. It could be from an article in Either Ebony Essence but then again it could be a from a Black history text book I have read on the topic. My guess is that during Slavery and Segregation Black Women were the main mixers and after the 60s Black men became the main
mixers.
I do not believe in colorblindness because I believe
in programs like Affermative Action. I do believe that
all colors should be celebrated. The term Colorblind
Racist seems too strong to me. It rubs me the wrong way.
I loved your post I still hope that I am not a colorblind
racist as Sewere & Lyonside have called me. You cut though the
mantras that many Black Women like my sister and friends often
say. It is so sad is that saying stuff like “I would never date
a _____ person” can help to make a person without a mate. (Sad!)
I wish My sister and other single black friends and realitives
would stop trying to appear so “true to the game”. I have alot
of White single friends who would date the rainbow but they are
shy. In my opinion Black men appear less nerdy ( although I am
a Black nerd myself) and that appearance of coolness is
very attractive to many women of all races. I have met many
women of different races who say they find Black men most
attractive. Some white women date exclusively Black men.
The near future probably will find America and the world Celebrating the attractiveness and beauty of African women like they deserve.
Interracial Power
Mike Reynolds,
Dude, can you please explain ending your comments with “interracial power”?
Mike Reynolds.
“My guess is that during Slavery and Segregation Black Women were the main mixers and after the 60s Black men became the main
mixers. ”
And you will apologize to black women for that insult. Do you know anything about the rape that white men perpetrated on black women for over 400 years?
My guess, is you ARE NOT a black man. No so-called black man can show such contempt and hatred for the sufferings that black women have endured in this country with such a statement as yours.
The majority of sex (90%) that occurred between black women and white men was by way of RAPE OR SEXUAL COERCION. Very little sex was by consent. So, you are saying that the sex during slavery was all unforced; the sex that black women endured from the slavemaster, his sons, the white overseers, white men who visited the plantation, white men invited to the plantation?
And even when slavery was abolished, white men continued to show their contempt for black women during segregation in continuing to force sex and pregnancy onto black women.
During segregation, white men had children with black women, and all across the South they abandoned their half-black children, giving these children no legal inheritance, recognizing no paternity, giving them no sustenance, no assistance. And being sexual gluttons, they were in no hurry to bring down the anti-miscegenation laws which condoned the rape of black women.
This is one of the reasons as well why black women fear the advances of white men even in 2007 America.
For over 400 years white men showed nothing but hatred and callous disregard for the feelings of black women, and really look beneath the surface, some black women will honestly question the motives of white men. And why not? For 400 years black women were not treated as WOMEN by white men; some black women may be wondering if white men can ever treat a black women as a human being, and not as an animal.
Some black women who have traveled around the world have met with more respect, interest and love from men who are not American-born white men. Those men who have shown the most interest are from Norway, Sweden, England, Denmark, Iceland—-ANYWHERE but America.
And black women have more in common—culturally—-with white American men than they do foreign-born men.
But, truth be told, if men from outside of America have the guts and the balls to approach black women respectfully, and honestly, many black women will see that, and respond positively.
And another thing, Mike Reynolds. Stay away from dishrags such as ESSENCE magazine. If you want to broaden your understanding of black women’s history in this country, READ black women’s history.
“A Shining Thread of Hope”, by Darlene Clark Hine and Kathleen Thompson;
“Black Women in White America: A Documentary History”, by Gerda Lerner;
“When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America”, by Paula Giddings
And that’s just to name a few.
And what is up with YOUR mantra: “interracial power”?
As if race-mixing is going to solve all of America’s race problems. With all the forced sex between white men on black women, America should be the LEAST racist country in the world. But all that race-mixing against black people did us nothing. Except to make us come in so many diluted colors.
You want to really see race relations improve in America? Work towards the eradicating of institutionalized/structural racism.
Get off the “We will all become one through sex” number.
Pardon the profanity, but America will not f##k its way to equality. If that were true, all the race-mixing in America would make black and white real close to each other. But, it hasn’t.
True equality starts here (in the mind) and here (in the heart).
Not between people’s legs.
“You cut though the
mantras that many Black Women like my sister and friends often
say. It is so sad is that saying stuff like I would never date
a _____ person can help to make a person without a mate. (Sad!)
I wish My sister and other single black friends and realitives.”
Like I said, those black women are attracted to white men, but, they DO NOT receive the reciprocity. Those black women are showing a defense mechanism, by their mantra of “not attractive”. What really makes a man attractive to a black woman is a man who will approach her respectfully, kindly, with a true interest and not callously. Any perceptive person can see that. Black women are like all other women. We do not pursue the man. Men pursue the women. So, if black woman shows any interest in a white man (subtle glances, eye contact, a slight wave in his direction) and he is not capable of comprehending that, then he has issues. Not her.
“I will never date a ________”. No. A black woman will not date a man whom she thinks cannot step up to the plate.
But, she will definately give time to a man who will. A man who sees her beauty; a man who is not a coward and worries about what his friends and family will think of his marriage choice.
A man who loves a black woman for all the beauty that he sees in her.
Sewere Thankyou!
I respect your post alot because I guess that you and or your family lived in another country. I think that helps break me out of an American perspective. I would have had Interracial Power be my name for this blog but I am a novice at posting so I used my name. I would like to change that for good reasons.
When I put Intteracial Power on my Post It is also my way of bringing attention to the power of acting interracially. It is not only about interracial marriage and transracial adoption, but it is about everything in which a multiracial planet works in positive ways to make individual race matter less. It is different from the Black Power and White Power Slogans of the past because those slogans are inherently exclusive. I mean it as a celebration of diversity working together. I think it defines alot of what I think is one answer to race relations. It is not a superiority statement about mixed people but it is a superiority statment about how races should get along. Intergration power and race mixing power is what I mean. The statment causes one to think about race relations. These are most of the reasons why I put it on most of my post. I also want to get the attention of Lyonside and others who have debated with me on previous post. I think that family and social intergration is one powerful card in the deck among many others to diminish racism. It is not alone and there are many other good ways to diminish racism. I am one who thinks that any evil can be diminished.
Mike, black women were RAPED not “mixing”. If the world fucked its way to equality, there’d be no sexism because men and women have been fucking for millenia. The myth of black macho came from a Jewish man named Norman Mailer who wrote The White Negro (1957). He romanticized oppression and made it the vanguard because technology robbed white men of their vitality and inspiration. Black psychopathy was white men’s only salvation. They found freedom through black bestiality and machismo. Of course, nothing has changed. White men’s lies created black people’s oppression through myths like black macho and black superwomen. Read Black Macho and the Myth of Superwoman instead of Soul on Ice. Black women’s location gives them epistemic privilege so I recommend the former not the latter.
Ann Sister
I am Black!!!! I may be strange but I am Black!!!
I get called sellout alot but I haven’t had a cross burned on my lawn. I might not compleetly understand colorblind racism but as a guy who loves to Clarence Thomas and Congaliza Rice you might get that I am not the sharpest tool in the deck. I also Love Black Women but I married the second girl I ever kissed because she was a virgin Fundamentalist Christian like myself at the time. Us nerds don’t know alot about the opposite sex. Please forgive
the seeming insulting parts of my post, I meant to agree with you.
I am sorry for my lac of clairity. I don’t want to sound like a colorblind racist. I was guessing about marriage. I am sure that marriage rates between White and black were very low during Slavery and segregation but there were Thousands Quadroon, Ocroon and others, with less black blood mixing whith Whites and others During Slavery and Segregation. Many Slaves were 1/32nd and 1/64th Black. Also there were thousands of brave loving Familys who were married, as an ecepton to the racist rule of rape and molest among more pure Black People. I have met White people who could point on a picture to their 1/4 Black Grandparent. I wish I had acsess to the ancestry records of all Americans. I would show everyone where the Africans and other minority groups are in their family trees. Marriage is what I was talking about. I became Interesed in the subject of race mixing after Reading the “Sex and Race” books by J.A. Rodgers. I oppose all sex outside of marriage and rape I oppose most of all. Marriage is the opposite of F–ing to help race relations. Marriage brings two families together better than a sexual relationship. Race mixing is best achived through Marriage.
I love your insightful post and I agree with most of what you have said.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan created the matriarchy myth with The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (1965) which blamed black women instead of white men for black men’s problems. Black men allied with white men to blame black women. He claimed there was an educational disparity in the 60s even there was only a one-year difference. It only proved women of color needed more education for employment. It did not translate to economic advancement. In reality, more black men in the 60s completed college than women.Men of color had more prestigious jobs although women of color had more jobs. Women were service workers like cooks, waiters, hairdressers, maids and domestics while men were fireman, guards, policemen. Moynihan blamed women-headed households because they did not make enough money. The solution should have been paying women more but Moynihan wanted male-headed households. Men of color’s unemployment, juvenile delinquency, illiteracy, fatherlessness houseolds were a separate issue. Not women’s fault. The number of female-headed households had to do with the uneven sex ratio. There were 80 men per 100 women. Black women’s empowerment was seen as counter-revolutionary and emasculating when they really had their own separate but related narrative. Moynihan scapegoated black women instead of white men.
Why are communities of color still buying white men’s bullshit 30 years later?
Forty and fifty years later?
Anyway, that was all related to Mike’s statement:
My guess is that during Slavery and Segregation Black Women were the main mixers and after the 60s Black men became the main mixers.
Women shouldn’t be blamed for rape and men shouldn’t buy into white men’s ideas of black macho. Men of color and their children should focus on education and making money and not be tricked into white men’s idea of black psychopathy. All this relates to other communities of color too but I highly recommend that book.
LikeLet me back up Mike Reynolds on one point. There are a couple studies by a guy named Thomas Monahan published in the 1970s that found that marriage was more common among Black women and White men during the 1930s-1950s (I’ll have to check that article to get the exact decades.).On the term “race mixing” –I would just remind Mike that that is exactly the kind of language white supremacists use.
But for the record I still think Mike Reynolds is a suspicious character–maybe a white guy pretending to be black or something.
admin.
“Like me back up Mike Reynolds on one point. There are a couple studies by a guy named Thomas Monahan published in the 1970s that found that marriage was more common among Black women and White men during the 1930s-1950s (Ill have to check that article to get the exact decades.).”
And what part of the country are you speaking of Rachel? The American South, where Jim Crow laws sent a white man/black woman to prison anywhere between 5 to 25 years in prison, OR if both were found out, they were both told to leave the state, never to return UNTIL AFTER 25 YEARS, if they were found out to be married to each other?
Or, are you speaking of Hawaii, maybe California, or perhaps Maine?
Please keep in mind I meant the segregated Jim Crow American South (1896-1964). Where with the institution of Plessy vs.Fergusson (1896), that all manner of living conditions and social interactions between whites and blacks were to be kept segregated.
Especially in the realm of marriage.
Yes, I would love to see your proof of MARRIAGE between white men and black women (not shacking up, living in sin, common-law marriage, which I do not recognize even if some morally lax states do.)
Thomas Monahan.
1970s.
Legal marriages between black women and white men.
I shall look into that as well.
Thirty states had laws on the books forbidding IR marriage between black and white.
In all, 30 states passed anti-miscegenation laws that stayed on the books until beginning of the civil rights movement. Of these, 16 kept their laws on the books until the Supreme Court threw them out in 1967: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Another 14 states passed anti-miscegenation laws, but repealed them in the 1950s or 1960s: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Notice that NONE of those 14 states are located in the American South.
In 1967, the case that brought down the anti-miscegenation laws occurred in Virginia.
Loving vs. the State of Virginia. A white man (Richard Loving) and a black woman (Mildred Jeter) were married, left the state of Virginia, returned from outside of the state of Virginia.When they returned, they were discovered, imprisoned, but challenged the state of Virginia on its racist laws.
They prevailed and won.
California was the first state in the 20TH Century that repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1948.
Alabama was the last state to repeal this hated law, in November 2000, a law that was an ugly reminder of America’s race hatred in the most private forms of human behaviour——marriage.
That blacks and white could marry in some parts of America is fact.
But in the segregated American South, it was against the law for a black man to marry a white woman, especially, and it was against the law to marry a black woman.
Unless the parties (BM/WW, WM/BW) hid their marriage, they faced deadly consequences.
One more thing, Rachel.
Of those 30 states with anti-miscegenation laws on the books, as I said the 16 states that kept laws on the books were located in the South.
Now, look at the 14 states that repealed most of their laws in the 1950s, 1960s: they were ALL located out in the American West/ Southwest.
See a pattern forming?
Black people after slavery began to slowly migrate west to escape the aftereffects of slavery, and many of them attempted settlement in many western states: California, Montana, Wyoming, etc.
Seeing this encroachment of black people as competition (jobs, housing, mates) many states in the West enacted anti-miscegenation laws to curtail any kind of upward mobility for blacks. (They also enacted laws which forbade blacks putting down roots in many towns and thus began the infamous “Sundown Towns”.) For decades it was against the law for blacks and whites to legally marry not just in the South.
Except for Northeastern/Central states (with the exception of Delaware, Maryland and Indiana, which had anti-miscegenation laws), and Alaska and Hawaii, all other states as I stated had anti-miscegenation laws.
But, it was the South that had the most stringently applied laws, especially against blacks, who could marry NO ONE outside of their race.
I believe Massachusetts was the first to rule such laws unconstitutional .I think that was arounf 1845 or so .
Ann, You are bringing up some really good points about regional variations. I’m trying to find the exact quote from that article. There are fairly severe methodological limitations to the earlier demogrpahic research on interracial marriage, and I think Monahan was looking only at the MD, VA, DC areas.
I also have an interesting graph from a study in 1974 by David Heer. Heer monitored the trends in Black/White marriage from 1960-1970. I’m going to replicate this table tomorrow, but here is what’s interesting in 1960 there were 25,406 mariages between Black men and White women and 25,913 marriages between Black women. However, by 1970 the numbers were 41,223 BM/WF marriages and only 23,566 between WM/BF marriages. So something happened in the 1960s to dramatically shift the gender ratio in black/white marriages.
Rachel.
“but here is whats interesting in 1960 there were 25,406 mariages between Black men and White women and 25,913 marriages between Black women. However, by 1970 the numbers were 41,223 BM/WF marriages and only 23,566 between WM/BF marriages. So something happened in the 1960s to dramatically shift the gender ratio in black/white marriages.”
Which brings me back round to my original post:
Why are there LESS marriages btween BW/WM in 2007 America?
Michael.
I did not say that California was the first state to repeal anti-miscegenation laws.
I said it was the first state in the 20TH Century to repeal anti-miscegenation law.
It’s one thing to be draconian in the period of slavery.
It’s another to be still practising racist behaviour against people’s personal decisions of whom they will spend their lives with, by keeping such racist laws on the books for almost 50 years into the 20TH Century.
Thank you Rachel
You found a peice of information I have been looking for
Please Rachel I am a Blackman. I grew up in the Church of God in Christ, I have been a Christian Rap performer. I was the first in my family of 5 children to marry interracially but two of my brothers after me also did. It is so unreal to have to defend one’s blackness. I must say however with your knoledge of Black history and politics you are an honarary African American if I may say so. I loved the album by Public Enemy Fear of a black Planet. some of the songs on that album stated this formula: White woman Black man= Black Baby. Black Woman White man =Black Baby. This equasion leads to a black planet. This formula makes the one drop rule work twards Africans advantage. I think that every person of color blending leads to a brown world. I like marking racial boxes on the census because the one drop rule will lead to a Black America. There are millions of White people who are part African American but because we do not have pictures of all their ancestors it cannot be proven. The future will have pictures and detailed records. Racism will be diminshed.
Gee wiz I am a Black man and a little militant if people understand what I mean. I love my people and hate no people.
That accusation hurts me but I have a thick skin. I seem to get some rejection from all sides but at least my life is not in danger.
Blackman accused of being White MIke
For anyone interested in the history (and sheer variety) of miscegenation laws in the US, a decent timelline is at http://www.lovingday.org/map.htm.
Some spelled out specific groups, some didn’t, some specified only blacks, only Asians, etc., some were against any white/non-white pairing, some were against cohabitation, some were explicitly against marriage… It’s facinating in a sickening way.
Sewere, did you even read the OP?
I brought up AA because I was responding to Bonilla-Siva’s characterizations (remember? the thread topic?) He lists as “racist” anyone who adheres to the belief that whites experience reverse discrimination–not that it is a major problem worth attending to, but that it exists at all. That’s bullshit.
I’m sure I’m a racist under other aspects of his definition, and I’m fine with that. (As i noted in a different post some time ago, the degree to which I’m bothered by an accusation of racism depends on the definition used by the accuser.)
But in any case I’m empirically trained–and I understand that facts ARE. they don’t change just because we don’t like them. And i’ll be damned if someone is going to accuse me of some bullshit because I acknowledge reality even if that reality doesn’t happen to match their political agenda.
Michael.
I did not say that California was the first state to repeal anti-miscegenation laws.
I said it was the first state in the 20TH Century to repeal anti-miscegenation law.
Ann , I never said you did . I simply was adding extra information to the conversation . In addition , I think it says somthing about my home state that is often mischaracterized in regard to issues of racial tolerance
Notice the large discrepancy in years between Massachusetts and other states
Popping in here again to say the statement by Mike reminded me of other issues besides “mixing.” I don’t care at all who marries who and hope everyone can marries whoever they want. But it has little to do with anti-racism which only comes about through anti-racist education by teaching partners or spouses about anti-racism, through schools and activist groups. It reminded me of white men’s ideas and the collusion of poc with these ideas to their detriment. People of color believed the narrative. >White men and men of color allied to scapegoat women of color. It was white men’s idea that they offer white women to be raped by black men to absolve themselves of their white guilt. Amiri Baraka wrote about this in American Sexual Reference: Black Male. Soul on Ice took this to the extreme saying if you fuck everybody nobody fucks you. Black Macho was gained by fucking 1) white men first 2) a black man second 3) a white woman third and 4) a black woman not at all. In the end, it mostly abused women of color. Similarities persist today between white men’s narratives and communities of color and the consequences which mostly hurt women of color.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s narrative about matriarchy and superwoman was used by whites and men of color to scapegoat women of color. Soul On Ice’s ridiculous extreme of fucking all men first and all women second ended up hurting women of color the most. The patriarchal macho of restoring families and establishing oneself through education and jobs took too long and the narcissistic macho was immediate. In the end though, the afro-rifle-and-penis weren’t enough to conquer whites.
Ignore the Norman Mailers and Daniel Moynihans of the world, otherwise, POC only hurt themselves and WOC.
“I loved the album by Public Enemy Fear of a black Planet. some of the songs on that album stated this formula: White woman Black man= Black Baby. Black Woman White man =Black Baby. This equasion leads to a black planet. This formula makes the one drop rule work twards Africans advantage.”
No. It will not lead towards Africans, or black American’s advantage.
If what you say is true, that one drop of black blood makes you black, then why does not one drop of white blood make you white?
Because white slavers and segregationist’s said it was so?
Because people, who genetically are white, and because they have a great grandmother who is black, that makes them black?
Do you realize how ludicous and racist that sounds?
Why is the black blood impure since black Africans were brought here against our will, and the white blood, the blood of rapists, not impure?
One drop of black blood does not make a person black, no matter who the person is who is deluding themselves into believing such a lie.
The creation of the ODR was to ensure MORE rape of black women, more slaves, more subjugation.
It was never to advance the status of black people in any way. And it still is not.
You never hear “One drop of Asian blood, makes you Asian,” “One drop of Latino blood makes you Latino,” “One drop of Navajo blood makes you Navajo”.
No.
Only one drop of black blood makes you black.
Yes, that bad, terrible, inferior black blood. Yes, it’s so much worse than the blood of white rapists.
And as for race-mixing advancing black people, it will not. Yes, it will wipe black Americans off the face of the Earth, since there is an overwhelming number of white, and non-black people residing in America. And regardless of what PE said in their song, children born of present-day “black” Americans would still not technically be black. Since “black” Americans of today are already of mixed blood (black-white-red), any children from a union of a “black” woman/”white” man would be multi-racial: Black/White/Native, and any other bloodline picked up due to genetics (genes passed down from paternal and maternal DNA.) Black people in America already are multi-racial. Multi-racial people are nothing new. They’ve been in existence since time immemorial, no matter what anyone in America wishes to believe. The bi-multiracial people of today have the Lovings to thank for the demise of anti-miscegenation laws. The bi-multiracial people of today stand on the shoulders of all those who came before them who suffered tremendous odds to bring out of the dark the true racial history of America; a history of a country that was ALWAYS MULTI-RACIAL, NOT MONORACIAL: the Lovings; the many children born of unions between slavers and black slave women; children born of white men/black women during segregation, whether or not they loved the black woman and forced themselves on a black woman, or the children born of the few white men who really cared for the black woman and the children they had with her.
It is because of the sufferings of the bi-multiracial people of the past (pre -1967) that the path that was paved, through blood, sweat, tears and unfailing work to fight in the overthrow of anti-miscegenation laws, that has enabled today’s bi-multiracial people to claim ALL of their genetic heritage.
So, there really would not be any “black” children born of IRs today, since black people already are of mixed blood.
And yes, I was suspect of your being a black man, when you made the comment about black women “mixing” during slavery and segregation, as if they had a say so in it.
They did not.
There is a difference between CONSENT and FORCE, and contrary to what many people chose to believe, there was more force, than consent.
“For anyone interested in the history (and sheer variety) of miscegenation laws in the US, a decent timelline is at http://www.lovingday.org/map.htm.
“Some spelled out specific groups, some didnt, some specified only blacks, only Asians, etc., some were against any white/non-white pairing, some were against cohabitation, some were explicitly against marriage Its facinating in a sickening way.”
Yes, fascinating, and sickening.
That “humans” could be so pathetic, in their desire to control something that was the domain and private interest between two people who would chose to spend their lives together, was beyond sickening.
That white America would rather see two people from different races NOT MARRIED to each other, but living outside of marriage was beyond perverse.
Only the minds of depraved people could have sat down and conceived of such hateful thinking.
Finally, enough about Black Macho. It bores me. The myths about matriarchy and superwomen persists today with the mainstream education and professionalization of women of color. It is a separate narrative and should not be related to any form of Macho. WOC must not be scapegoated for their mainstream success.
“I loved the album by Public Enemy Fear of a black Planet. some of the songs on that album stated this formula: White woman Black man= Black Baby. Black Woman White man =Black Baby. This equasion leads to a black planet. This formula makes the one drop rule work twards Africans advantage.”
No. It will not lead towards Africans, or black American’s advantage.
If what you say is true, that one drop of black blood makes you black, then why does not one drop of white blood make you white?
Because white slavers and segregationist’s said it was so?
Because people, who genetically are white, and because they have a great grandmother who is black, that makes them black?
Do you realize how ludicous and racist that sounds?
Why is the black blood impure since black Africans were brought here against our will, and the white blood, the blood of rapists, not impure?
One drop of black blood does not make a person black, no matter who the person is who is deluding themselves into believing such a lie.
The creation of the ODR was to ensure MORE rape of black women, more slaves, more subjugation.
It was never to advance the status of black people in any way. And it still is not.
You never hear “One drop of Asian blood, makes you Asian,” “One drop of Latino blood makes you Latino,” “One drop of Navajo blood makes you Navajo”.
No.
Only one drop of black blood makes you black.
Yes, that bad, terrible, inferior black blood. Yes, it’s so much worse than the blood of white rapists.
And black blood is not so all powerful that it can overwhelm large portions of white blood, or any other blood. That one itty-bitty little drop of black blood will be washed away in a sea of white, Asian, Latino, etc., blood.
And as for race-mixing advancing black American people, it will not. Yes, it will wipe black Americans off the face of the Earth, since there is an overwhelming number of white, and non-black people residing in America. And regardless of what PE said in their song, children born of present-day “black” Americans would still not technically be black. Since “black” Americans of today are already of mixed blood (black-white-red), any children from a union of a “black” woman/”white” man would be multi-racial: Black/White/Native, and any other bloodline picked up due to genetics (genes passed down from paternal and maternal DNA.)
Black people in America already are multi-racial. Multi-racial people are nothing new. They’ve been in existence since time immemorial, no matter what anyone in America wishes to believe. The bi-multiracial people of today have the Lovings (and other courageous people like them) to thank for the demise of anti-miscegenation laws. The bi-multiracial people of today stand on the shoulders of all those who came before them who suffered tremendous odds to bring out of the dark the true racial history of America; a history of a country that was ALWAYS MULTI-RACIAL, NOT MONORACIAL: the Lovings; the many children born of unions between slavers and black slave women; children born of white men/black women during segregation, whether or not they loved the black woman and forced themselves on a black woman, or the children born of the few white men who really cared for the black woman and the children they had with her, children born of non-whites and whites.
It is because of the sufferings of the bi-multiracial people of the past (pre -1967) that the path that was paved, through blood, sweat, tears and unfailing work (litigation in the courts) to fight in the overthrow of anti-miscegenation laws, that has enabled today’s bi-multiracial people to claim ALL of their genetic heritage.
So, there really would not be any “black” children born of IRs today, since black people already are of mixed blood.
And yes, I was suspect of your being a black man, when you made the comment about black women “mixing” during slavery and segregation, as if they had a say so in it.
They did not.
There is a difference between CONSENT and FORCE, and contrary to what many people chose to believe, there was more force, than consent.
“For anyone interested in the history (and sheer variety) of miscegenation laws in the US, a decent timelline is at http://www.lovingday.org/map.htm.
“Some spelled out specific groups, some didnt, some specified only blacks, only Asians, etc., some were against any white/non-white pairing, some were against cohabitation, some were explicitly against marriage Its facinating in a sickening way.”
Yes, fascinating, and sickening.
That “humans” could be so pathetic, in their desire to control something that was the domain and private interest between two people who would chose to spend their lives together, was beyond sickening.
That white America would rather see two people from different races NOT MARRIED to each other, but living outside of marriage was beyond perverse.
Only the minds of depraved people could have sat down and conceived of such hateful thinking.
Donna Darko
Thanx for challenging me
I hope you don’t think that I am a White poser or a colorblind racist. From your post I did not get that impression. I am not macho I am a nerd who dose trys to keep my wife happy.
I agree that too much blame is placed on women. When are they gonna force men to pay child support. I would take it out of everymans social security. If the country were run by strong women their would be alot more paid. I also blame men for most divorces and crime.
Mike Reynolds.
“Gee wiz I am a Black man and a little militant if people understand what I mean. I love my people and hate no people.
That accusation hurts me but I have a thick skin. I seem to get some rejection from all sides but at least my life is not in danger.
Blackman accused of being White MIke.”
Yes, I did snip-snap on you.
It’s just that your comment came off as callous and disregarding of all the history of black women in America.
And yes, we black people ALL have to keep a thick skin. It comes with living in America.
Black women are invisible in America.
But, we have so many accomplishments, that the knowledge of them would blow most people’s minds.
Whether the issue if of race, sex/gender, class, we black women have made our impact on it. Yes, black men have had great effects on American history. But, so have black women.
But, please, check out all those books I have recommended to you. Keep in mind, they are just the tip of the iceberg. Google “black women’s history”. Be prepared to discover a wealth of information that will both open your mind, as well as enlighten you of the long history of black women in America.
Whatever the movement that was in motion, whether it be the fight to abolish slavery, the early days of feminism, the struggle to dismantle segregation, unfair labor practices, the effects of sexism on all women, the economic exploitation of workers——-we black women were there in the thick of the fight against injustice, and we have more than made our impact on it.
We are a part of America.
And I for one will always speak up for us.
I will not allow us to be forgotten and pushed to the side, to the margins.
I will not allow us to relegated to being footnotes in American history.
Donna Darko.
Your comments were most refreshing and welcomed.
Thanks.
No problem, Ann. The same goes for all women of color. I’m going to repeat what you said and replace black with black, Latina, Asian and Native American. Seriously, it’s 2007. It’s not 1978 when Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman came out. It’s not 1981 when Ain’t I A Woman came out. It’s not 1851 when Sojourner Truth said “Ain’t I a Woman?” It is FUCKING 2-0-0-7. Women of color shouldn’t have to go over this shit every day. It’s in books, on history record, on google.
Black, Latino, Asian and Native American women are invisible in America.
But, we have so many accomplishments, that the knowledge of them would blow most peoples minds.
Whether the issue if of race, sex/gender, class, we black, Latino, Asian and Native American women have made our impact on it. Yes, black, Latino, Asian and Native American men have had great effects on American history. But, so have women of color.
Whatever the movement that was in motion, we black, Latino, Asian and Native American women were there in the thick of the fight against injustice, and we have more than made our impact on it.
We are a part of America.
And I for one will always speak up for us.
I will not allow us to be forgotten and pushed to the side, to the margins.
I will not allow us to relegated to being footnotes in American history.
Prince Maximillian of Lichtenstein?
Ann,
That white America would rather see two people from different races NOT MARRIED to each other, but living outside of marriage was beyond perverse. Only the minds of depraved people could have sat down and conceived of such hateful thinking.
Keep in mind that America was established within a strong RELIGIOUS context, and during the period when anti-miscegenation/Jim Crow laws were prevalent, the Bible as a social construct, was frequently (mis)interpreted within a context to support such ideals. Thus, the thinking of interracial MARRIAGES are against God, in addition to that though living together outside of marriage, is living in sin, and because interracial MARRIAGES are illegal, this further fostered the notion that interracial COUPLES always live in sin and are therefore against God. Kind of a circular reference to recycle and further perpetuate the ideal. It was sickening.
Anyway, sorry I dont have a comment on colorblind racism other than that it is waaay sneaky. The sad thing is that even if we all walked around with our double-helix make-up tattooed on our foreheads, we would still have to deal with the same social constructs built around appearance and associative recognition. So yeah, individuals do have responsibility to stop feeding the machine of racism, but color blind racism seems to feed off of individuals. From that perspective it takes on a characteristic akin to that of a virus in that there can be as many variations of it as there are individuals that it can affect.
[...] http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=395http://www.alternet.org/story/16792/http://whiteprivilege.com/ [...]
[...] As far as it goes, it’s not an inadmirable sentiment. I fully believe that most people who profess colorblindness do so from a well-founded desire to do the right thing. Unfortunately, many of those same people have either not thought it out entirely, or simply don’t know what to do with it. And some people are just mean, and relish the increased opportunities for passive-aggressive bullying it allows. Sometimes, it just comes out racist. [...]
[...] Race Relations 101 – Colorblindness Colorblind Racism Say what? Colorblind, Part II Colorblind Racism vs. Old Fashioned Racism [...]
Ok. Sorry all, I know I’m not part of your “happy” group and these threads ended quite a bit ago, but I have to remark on a point of contension. Earlier on there were some rather heated arguements about college-educated “black” and asian women make more than “white” women and the issue of part-time vs. fulltime. As a social scientist, I just have to point out, that Donna’s argument that white women are married to white men and thus can afford to work part-time and therefore actually in a better position than minority women, is merely speculation. It may be warranted speculation, but it is speculation none-the-less. The facts are college-educated white women earn less than asian and black women of similar education. Now the fact that they work part-time may be indicative of many things, not excluding that it may be difficult for them to find fulltime jobs in their areas of expertise (which could be a sexism or racism issue on its own). With that said, the only way to really know if college educated Black and Asian women “do better” than their white counterparts is not to look just at who is working parttime, but to see how many college educated Black, White and Asian women are working in jobs that require college degrees, particularly their specific degrees, and how many are not, or cannot. If we find that Black women typically get stuck in fulltime jobs that do not typically require a college degree even though they, on average, earn more than white women this says something. My “speculation” however is that we will find that minority women choose degrees in areas that have more employment opportunities and that don’t require graduate degrees, like business and finance, while many white women idealistically study the humanities and arts and then find it difficult to obtain work in their given areas without going on towards an MA or PhD.
Also, i must disagree wholeheartedly with the notion I’ve heard a few times that whites are not discriminated against.
I can’t speak for the whole white “race”, but I can speak for myself. I have on a few occasions been discriminated against for work in certain fields because I am caucasian. I have also been given jobs in other fields because I am white. There is definately white privilege but some white discrimination does occur (especially if one lives in a city that is predominately not white). With that said, while not “discriminated” against everyday I am the victim of prejudice almost everyday (I live in a mostly black neighborhood). I’ve been called “cracker” more times than I can count, people have thrown things at me, general sneers, etc. These people may have very good reason to dislike “white” people, however this is still racism and it occurs all the time. I cant speak for others but many white friends have described similar treatment. So long story short, racism happens to everyone, it is everyone’s problem. To deny that fact is in itself racist and shows an unwillingness of the denier to actually want to work towards a more egalitarian world.