Black Adversity: The Opposite of White Privilege

[Wise Son]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but as I mentioned, I am currently staying with my girlfriend and her family in Australia. A few responses, but a lot of this stuff is not really fresh in my memory. The main reason I'm responding is that something occurred to me soon after I got here.

I agree that other factors, the liberalization of divorce laws, the general social decline in sexual morality, also played a role.

'Sexual morality' is a pretty loaded way of putting it. Sexual morality has changed, but definitely improved in some ways - it's no longer seen as being as dirty as it was, as being something inherently 'unhealthy'. If anything, the attitudes to sex have become less hypocritical today than in previous eras (for example, look at the Victorian era, where all aspects of sex were publicly frowned on, but where activities such as child prostitution thrived in a way they could not in our countries today).

What AFDC and similar programs also produced was greater latitude for married women to get out of bad relationships and still have some source of support, as well as allowing men to do the same while avoiding responsibility with the rationalization that the women will get support from the government. Thus it was a factor in pushing up the divorce rate as well as the break up of unmarried couples, particularly in the inner-city.

So, it made unstable, unhealthy relationhips easier to escape from? Let's face it, a genuinely stable, happy marriage won't be any more likely to break up if divorce is more readily available.

a simple charge of "white privilege" (a phrase that as well as fostering racial antagonism, also tends to push all blame to "the white man" and in so doing, if widely accepted, may tend to undermine the sense of personal responsibility in the individuals directly involved and actually foster attitudes of futility that reinforce a negative cycle).

I do see your point, but I think that this thread has really gone into the nuances and substance behind what you see as a 'simple charge', but I think that you cannot accept those points, for reasons I'll go into later.

Also, I have to disagree that all black people are worse off than all white people.

I also think you're oversimplifying again here. While I have said that black people face greater pressure and more challenges, that does not equate to all black people being worse off - clearly a growing number of Black people are starting to get fair rewards for their work, and are living lives that are better off than some white people. I don't think that negates any of the points I did make.

For the several reasons I stated above, depending on circumstances, with the advent of affirmative action and institution of racial diversity programs, black applicants to high-prestige academic institutions and professional programs are favored, and black professionals who are equally qualified with their white counterparts may enjoy a competitive advantage in some circumstances.

Here, I think you're looking at the exception that proves the rule. These are institutions that have allowed the most discussion of affirmative action and similar schemes, and of the politics and social realities behind them. I really think that you would need to see similar trends in other areas and certainly within private industry before you could argue that this was becoming anything more than a rare exception.

This is why some scholars draw a distinction between the black middle-class and professionals, and the black urban poor, as facing very different circumstances.

A valid distinction, certainly. The effect of class does, I believe, trump the effects of race, or at least go a very long way towards lessening it. I would argue that, in most areas, lower-class black and white people have more in common with each other than with their middle-class counterparts, and vice versa.

Wise Son, thanks for your thoughts here. I think we've done a decent job of letting each other know where we stand, where we agree, and where we don't. While not wholly dismissing one another, hahaha. 

That's what we seem to do best.

The other point which I thought of was relating to those points that people like you and I, and conservatives and progressives in general agree and disagree on. The main one that we seem to have in common is the idea of 'the level playing-field'. No matter what, we all agree it's the practical and moral ideal to aim for, and that an 'un-level playing field' is inherently wrong. That is what is at the core of the discussion of 'white privelege', 'racial discrimination', etc.

So what is the area of disagreement? It seems to me that it is simply this: Conservatives believe that the playing field already is level, progressives that it is not. It's pretty much there in the terms; conservatives want to conserve the world as it is, and why conserve a world that is unfair? They would not, they believe it already is fair, and that people are living in the way they deserve. Progressives believe that the world is not fair, at least not as it is currently set up, but that what we have can be built upon to make it fair.

I think this is also some of the reason for both groups' frustration with each other: conservatives cannot understand why progressives would want to add all sorts of benefits and advantages to certain groups, when the basic underlying system is already fair, progressives cannot understand why conservatives would want to maintain a system that unfairly penalises those groups. What you end up with is people who are basically all good-hearted and want the same thing, who can't help but view the others as deluded, heartless zealots.

Anyway, that's how it seems to me. What do you guys think?

[michaelintp]

Wise Son, even without making value judgments, the objective fact is that sexual promiscuity, the undermining of the institution of marriage, and the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births and single mothers raising children, have had and continue to have disastrous social consequences. You talk of "getting out of a bad marriage" but the reality is that over the years virtually every marriage that involves real human beings has significant ups and downs, and the "easy out" at the first signs of stress (assuming the couple even bothered to get married) is destructive to the family, and to children, under circumstances where marriages and families could be saved. This goes to the broader issue of people not accepting individual responsibility for their conduct and life choices and the consequences of those choices (including having children), rather looking for the easy way out by blaming someone else. Indeed, a lack of responsibility and laying blame on others usually go hand in hand. 

As to the charge of "white privilege" - I can't make myself any clearer than I already have. People can and should intelligently talk about the underlying issues (which in part surround past or current discrimination or the effects of past or current discrimination, as well as other factors that may have an impact on income inequality) without the race-baiting. Though you may disagree, I believe the reason some insist on using the loaded phrase is to foster racial division, antagonism, bigotry and hatred, and/or to justify those feelings they already have. Instead of focusing on bringing people together. Because the loaded phrase is misleading and serves no valuable purpose whatsoever.

Moving beyond this specific point, to the totality of the discussion above: The potential explanations for income inequality are complex, and cannot and should not be summed up in the inflammatory "sound bite" of "white privilege." 

I do believe some members of the "black middle and upper classes" overstate their personal perception of discrimination, perhaps as a cultural identification thing, part of the "black identity" thing. The hardships the black inner-city poor experience have little to do with the experiences of a member of the educated and upwardly mobile black middle or upper classes. Which is not to say some people's perceptions of racism are not real at times; but some folks may be predisposed to characterize behavior as prejudiced when it is in fact behavior experienced from time to time by everyone of all ethnic and racial backgrounds. Many of the incidents people have recounted over the years on this Forum as evidence of their experience of racism are similar to things I've personally experienced, for example.

The real solution, as I see it, is as I've said many times already ... education. In a culture that values economic mobility, education is key. Unlike some other cultures, in the United States there is a long history of admiration for the "self-made man" (now woman as well) who came from humble beginnings and forged a business empire or successful professional career. My sense is that the "class-barriers" are far more permeable in the U.S. than in the U.K. (with the latter being based on very old traditions going back to the landed gentry - though maybe my view of the U.K. is based on an old stereotype that doesn't really apply anymore). Educational opportunities have become widespread in the U.S. as well; an aristocracy is not maintained by excluding all but the privileged class into institutions of higher education.

As to your "level paying field" notion ... if, by that, you mean that each person born starts with the same wealth base, then that is problematic. The only way to accomplish that would be by means of a confiscatory death tax and oppressive rates of income taxation, to constantly redistribute wealth among the population (irrespective of each person's effort or success). I believe the motive for a person to work to provide for his children's future is an important one and must not be undermined though excessive taxation and redistribution (even if that means that his child has a head start over where, for example, I started). So too, the incentive to work to keep most of what you earn is an important incentive that must not be undermined. The consequence of major programs to redistribute income is to undermine the incentive to work and undermine the incentive to take risks in business. As reflected this weekend in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, the effect of growing income redistribution programs and uncertainty about tax increases is a terrible stifling of economic growth, that actually ends up hurting the poor. Because, while the poor might get a larger slice of the redistributed pie, the pie is a hell of a lot smaller. What we really need are pro-business policies that foster real economic growth and opportunity in the private sector. Instead of always viewing "businesspeople" - the "capitalists" - as the bad guys.

For example, the effect of the tax cuts of 1981 were striking.  From 1982 to 1988, per capita income for whites rose 14%, for blacks 18% (compared to the Carter years of 2.4% for whites and 1% for blacks). Black Unemployment was cut in half under Reagan, with 2.6 million African-Americans joining the labor force, and the number of black families in the highest income bracket ($50,000 and over) rose by 86%.

Of course the elimination of class "barriers" is important: in the sense of mobility of the individual to move up the economic ladder based on his or her own effort, without artificial barriers (based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and so on). This is wholly consistent with the traditional American value placed on self-reliance. And again, I keep repeating, the pursuit of education (in economically productive areas of study) is the key to this individual success.

But anyway, I don't think I have anything more to say about this topic. I'm burned out on it. Frankly, before Obama was elected, it seemed we talked more about a more diverse range of issues.

Here is the Wall Street Journal Editorial I referenced above:

Wealth and Poverty
How's that inequality thing working out?
September 20, 2010         

If there is a single unifying principle behind the Democratic agenda of the last two years, it is this: Reduce income inequality. So yesterday's annual Census Bureau review of American incomes is a kind of progress report on how this agenda is working out. In a word, our wealth isn't spread any more equitably, though more of us are poor.

The Current Population Survey shows that in 2009 the poverty rate climbed to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008—the highest since 1994. That figure translates into 43.6 million Americans living below the poverty line, the largest absolute number in the half-century for which comparable data are available. At $49,777, the real median household income fell slightly, though not in a statistically significant way. It declined 1.8% among families and rose 1.6% for individuals.

In a statement yesterday, President Obama attributed these results to the financial panic and recession, and that's true in part. The Census data also overstate the true level of poverty because they don't include noncash government payments like housing subsidies, food stamps, the earned income tax credit or entitlements like Medicaid.

But then Mr. Obama couldn't resist adding that "Even before the recession hit, middle class incomes had been stagnant and the number of people living in poverty in America was unacceptably high, and today's numbers make it clear that our work is just beginning." So to address the rising poverty on his watch, the President wants to plow ahead with the same policies that aren't reducing poverty.

We draw a different lesson, which is the continuing imperative of rapid economic growth. Census Bureau figures over the last 50 years show that poverty falls most rapidly during times of the most sustained growth—the 1960s, 1980s and second half of the 1990s. The poverty rate also fell in the mid-2000s before heading up again when the recession hit. The most important goal of economic policy should be to increase society's overall wealth. This helps the poor and everybody else.

Yet starting with his first budget proposal, Mr. Obama has made clear that his main policy purpose is reducing inequality. As the White House budget scribes put it, "There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."

Thus the 2009 stimulus was assembled around social programs and redistribution, defying even Keynesian precepts about immediate job creation. Among its many other goals, ObamaCare is intended to produce "a leveling" of the "maldistribution of income in America," as Senate Finance Chairman and chief author Max Baucus put it. Even now, amid a mediocre recovery and 9.6% unemployment, the inequality imperative is driving Democrats to insist on a huge tax increase—no matter the impact on growth.

The irony is that, while there has been a modest widening of the income gap in recent decades, the Census (as measured by the "Gini index") shows that inequality has remained mostly unchanged since the early 1990s—regardless of which party is in power. The reasons are many and rooted in larger economic and social forces that can't be fixed with higher taxes and White House social engineering.

More important, this preoccupation with inequality is actively harmful because it leads to economic policies that inhibit growth. That's the real warning in the new Census data. Democrats are succeeding in their goal of punishing business and the wealthy, but to the extent that this has produced anemic growth it is also punishing the poor and middle class.

The moral claim of Obamanomics is that it ensures that everyone pays his "fair share," but its early returns show this agenda is producing more poverty. In their obsession with income shares and how many people have how much wealth, the Obama Democrats are imposing policies that ensure only that there will be less wealth for everyone to spread around.

[Wise Son]

Apologies for the big delay replying, and getting back on the HEF ingeneral, but I've been back from Australia, and things have been pretty busy. Anyway, first of all, I was watching

this video of a discussion on religion and the African American community

, and Richard Dawkins answers a question about 8 minutes in, which goes back to a large part of this discussion, when we were talking about the reliability of the study we were talking about.

Wise Son, even without making value judgments, the objective fact is that sexual promiscuity, the undermining of the institution of marriage, and the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births and single mothers raising children, have had and continue to have disastrous social consequences.

I still think you're stating your opinion as 'objective fact'. I@m not saying you're wrong, so much as I am saying that there are other sides to several of those points which are not disastrous. I would argue that there is a world of difference between 'sexual promiscuity', and the changes in attitudes characterised by the 'sexual revolution', and; that part of the 'undermining' of marriage has been the shift away from seeing it as a transfer of property from a father to a husband (the property being the woman), which is undoubtedly a positive.

You talk of "getting out of a bad marriage" but the reality is that over the years virtually every marriage that involves real human beings has significant ups and downs, and the "easy out" at the first signs of stress (assuming the couple even bothered to get married) is destructive to the family, and to children, under circumstances where marriages and families could be saved.

You are talking about very different realities. Yes, any relationship will have difficulties, and I have seen proof of that in my own family, marriages that have been stressed by outside pressures, pushed very nearly to breaking points, but which were eventually endured through love, mutual support and compromise. There are also marriages which were 'unhealthy', and could not survive, despite both partners' love for each other, and for their children. Furthermore, although I am lucky enough not to be a child of divorce, asking those who are, and people who work with children, the general consensus is that a divorce is better for the children than being raised in an unhappy marriage, and that 'staying together for the children' is among the worst things a parent can do.

Also, I realised I have a personal reason for disliking that argument, which is that I have been in an abusive, long-term relationship, one where marriage was discussed several times, and whether we had or had not got married, the only healthy thing for me was to get out of that relationship, and if we had been married, it would still have been the only healthy thing to do, rather than trying to 'work through' the problems. Therefore, I find that you're dismissing situations like that in the way you made your points.

Indeed, a lack of responsibility and laying blame on others usually go hand in hand.

True, but I have also found that it can be just as irresponsible to keep taking personal responsibility for problems caused by your environment or by others. The only truly responsible position is surely to just be honest about where responsibility lies, and sometimes it will be with us, sometimes it will not.

Moving beyond this specific point, to the totality of the discussion above: The potential explanations for income inequality are complex, and cannot and should not be summed up in the inflammatory "sound bite" of "white privilege."

 
I would argue that the nature of "white privelege" being a soundbite is pretty subjective. To the people discussing it in this thread, there has been a demonstrable understanding of the complexity of the concepts rolled up in it. I understand that not everybody shares that understanding, but I think there is more value in using Political Correctness here, and forcing people to be honest and to justify what they mean when they use the term. Basically, discuss it, rather than censor it.

The hardships the black inner-city poor experience have little to do with the experiences of a member of the educated and upwardly mobile black middle or upper classes.

I can support that statement, as I think it would be accurate to make that comment without 'black' being in there, or with 'black' swapped for any other identifier.

Which is not to say some people's perceptions of racism are not real at times; but some folks may be predisposed to characterize behavior as prejudiced when it is in fact behavior experienced from time to time by everyone of all ethnic and racial backgrounds. Many of the incidents people have recounted over the years on this Forum as evidence of their experience of racism are similar to things I've personally experienced, for example.

I understand what you are saying there, but I think that there is a need to acknowledge that the same experiences might have very different aspects, causes and subtext, and that the people going through them might be more sensitive or aware of these than we are.

The real solution, as I see it, is as I've said many times already ... education. In a culture that values economic mobility, education is key.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have often felt that there's a difference between our stated valuing of economic mobility and our demonstrated value of it.

Unlike some other cultures, in the United States there is a long history of admiration for the "self-made man" (now woman as well) who came from humble beginnings and forged a business empire or successful professional career.

Yes, but I have to ask, what if you don't want to have an empire or a career? Why should we not admire equally people who choose a different constructive life? A lot of this debate has been about people who are trying to just get by, or even just raise a family, not excel in the professional or business arena. These people still need and are entitled to the same fair access to society though.

My sense is that the "class-barriers" are far more permeable in the U.S. than in the U.K. (with the latter being based on very old traditions going back to the landed gentry - though maybe my view of the U.K. is based on an old stereotype that doesn't really apply anymore).

Depends on who you ask: Some people will tell you that class is dead in the UK, and that the only people who argue differently are just hung up on old Left-wing prejudices. Interestingly, pretty much all of the people that argue this tend to be doing pretty well for themselves.

Also, I would point out that, with the Bushes and Clintons, you came close to having more than 2 decades being ruled by only 2 families - that's an aristocracy by anyone's reckoning.

Educational opportunities have become widespread in the U.S. as well;

From the discussions I have seen on here and elsewhere, I think you, like us in the UK, have far to go. After all, the constant debate about how to 'fix' education, whether to use vouchers or some other system, shows that there is still a lot of concern about making sure our children are in 'good' schools. This in turn shows that there is at least a perception that there are 'bad' schools, and that children enrolled in those schools will, regardless of their own personal qualities, face more barriers to success than others (after all, if you believe it is all down to personal effort and drive, why worry where they are schooled, or indeed sending them to school at all?)).

Your points on the playing field imply that you feel that the threat of poverty as a means of motivation is a higher or more useful ideal than the fairness of the level playing field. I have to ask, how does that match up with the fact that social mobility has been falling over recent decades in our countries, while the gap between rich and poor has been rising? If the poor are getting poorer, surely they have more motivation to succeed, and would therefore close that gap, and conversely, the rich getting richer would mean their motivation to succeed would be constantly falling, and they would get poorer, again closing the gap.
We live in a society where the people who need money the least are making the most, and vice versa, so I don't the benefit of the motivation as you describe it.
I do agree that changing our systems to ones that do actively promote the equality they claim to desire would be difficult (look at the opposition to the baby steps Obama has taken), but then I guess we're into the question of whether diffcult is more important than right.
I do find it interesting that conservatives who believe that people should only have what they have earned always make that exception for their own children. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but it does seem to indicate that there's some degree of recognition that it's a principal that is basically unrealistic in practice. What I do think is positive is that it means accepting that we can be motivated by the benefit of others, rather than just for ourselves. Once that principle is established, I think it leads to the conclusion that being motivated for the universal, rather than the personal good is entirely possible, which would provide motivation in a 'level playing field' situation (a rising tide lifts all boats, as they say).

Because, while the poor might get a larger slice of the redistributed pie, the pie is a hell of a lot smaller.

I don't see the problem here. If everyone gets enough of a smaller pie, that's surely better than some starving while others gorge themselves on a bigger pie (to extens the metaphor).

What we really need are pro-business policies that foster real economic growth and opportunity in the private sector. Instead of always viewing "businesspeople" - the "capitalists" - as the bad guys.

That works if 'trickle-down' economics works. Unfortunately, it doesn't. What you are suggesting could be the beginning of a workable solution, as long as the private sector is also forced to maintain equal opportunities for those that are qualified, and to provide practical and useful support to make such qualifications genuinely open and promoted to all. Simply, I don't trust organisations who are legally bound to put profit above all else to do anything for the benefit of society without some coercion.

And again, I keep repeating, the pursuit of education (in economically productive areas of study) is the key to this individual success.

...Along with its promotion, as well.

The article you posted isn't entirely convincing to me. I do understand what it says that a rapidly expanding economy does benefit everyone, at least in the short term, but that kind of rapid growth also leads to the cycle of boom and bust we've endured since atleast the 80s. The article seems to suggest that what we need is some kind of sustainable rapid growth, which I (although an admitedly complete amateur) don't think is realistic. What they seem to be criticising Obama for seeking is a slower but steadier growth, with more distribution of wealth. This does mean that those at the top are making significantly less than they would be making under a conservative administration, but they can afford to lose out. I can't help thinking that what Obama's administration are building will be a more sustainable, but less spectacular setup, if it is allowed to continue.

I fully acknowledge my own personal prejudices and influences, but with my most objective head on, that is honestly how I see it.