Please note the very word I used, "plight." This signifies something pernicious about the way a young black man is viewed by someone who is not black. I considered editing the word, but I think leaving it in is instructive because it demonstrates the unconscious infantilizing of young black men in which many white commentators engage. On average a young black man faces enormous challenges that on average most young white men do not; however, using the word "plight" paints too broad a stroke because it assumes that all young black men face an identical and intractable problem. While circumstances of poverty make for an intractable problem that many young black men have, circumstances of poverty make for an intractable problem for many persons of all races. Surely an upper class or upper middle class young black man faces issues of race that his white peers do not, yet the issues he faces are different from the issues a young black man growing up in extreme urban poverty faces. To discuss the "plight" of young black men does erases the quantitative and qualitative differences in the actual and potential experiences of discrimination across the gamut of young black men. In this way, "young black men" serves as a category bereft of individuality, positive capabilities, and humanity. Young black men become objects of pity and confusion for white commentators rather than persons living actual lives.
While I digress, I believe the digression is an important one to measure any comments that I (or anyone else for that matter) make against a backdrop of potential paternalism. While race in America is a significant issue that gives rise to significant problems, the permutations are myriad and do not lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all analysis or solution. Indeed, one of the great peculiarities of our discussions of race in America is the paucity of attention that is placed on the effects of racism on the white population. I don't mean this in the sense that white persons are subject to reverse discrimination or any such nonsense, but rather in the sense that a white person who engages in racist thought or behavior, even of the unconscious sort, must also be affected by racism.
Too often white commentators act as if they are at an objective remove from racism, neutral observers not subject to the affects of the racism about which they write and speak. It seems to me that nothing could be further from the truth. For example, I (and many others) have long believed that the reason the "southern strategy" works is that the last three decades have seen a significant diminution in the standard of living of middle and lower class white persons who do not possess college degrees and it is convenient for these persons to displace their anger and frustration onto African Americans; hence, the vitriol in discussions about affirmative action and any other legal apparatus that is perceived as disproportionately benefiting African Americans. This has led to enormous numbers of white persons who derive no benefit from conservative policies to vote for conservative politicians out of a racial bias (conscious or not), especially those conservative politicians who explicitly promise to gut affirmative action, welfare, and any other program perceived (rightly or wrongly) to favor African Americans. The impact of the racial bias on political choice has been severe: diminution of organized labor, diminution of the social safety net, an increase in regressive taxation schemes, etc. Ultimately the racism of many white persons has had a clear impact on the actual power this population wields and the prosperity available to them.
Back to Gutting's piece. His thesis is that "our continuing problems about race are essentially rooted in a fundamental injustice in our economic system." Gutting cites Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech and notes that Dr. King's principal thesis was that African Americans were "not free" because they "live on a lonely island of poverty." The thrust then, of Gutting's critique is that persons who lack "basic goods" are at a staggering disadvantage in trying to advance their material prosperity when compared to those who do not have to compete for basic goods. Cass Sunstein has a fantastic piece on the deleterious effects of scarcity on the poor that effectively demonstrates Gutting's point. The unstated premise of Gutting's argument is that race will become less of an issue if African Americans are not disproportionately represented among the poor, with which I take some issue as noted in my digression above. Ultimately Gutting persuasively argues that the distribution of material wealth is unjust and that we need to examine whether this is an injustice subject to correction.
The primary benefit of Guttings' piece is to call attention to the fact that most of the platitudes and polemics about race in America fail to say anything intelligible about the actual causes and effects of racism. In this way, he presents an effective critique of the diametrically opposed responses to the Trayvon Martin killing as being unhelpful in advancing our understanding of race in America. While I believe that his contention that systemic economic injustice is the root cause of racial disparity is not entirely accurate, it is refreshing to see a point of view that looks below the surface and at least tries to get to the heart of the matter. And regardless of whether Gutting accurately diagnoses the reason that many young black men in America face long odds against success, he is most certainly right that:
Unless we work for this fundamental [economic] justice, then we must reconcile ourselves to a society with a permanent underclass...And that, regardless of race, is tragic.
No comments:
Post a Comment