Has Class Trumped Race? Part 4 - The Question at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture

Has Class Trumped Race? Part 4 - The Question

by Latoya Peterson

This is a continuation of a series. See parts 1, 2, 3, and 3.5 for more details.

So it took me a while to write this part of the series, partially because I am still looking for a concrete answer to the following question:

Why do so many people want to focus more on class than on race?

Now, this is not to say that class isn’t an important issue. It is. And it is an issue that needs to be brought before the public for discussion more often.

However, I must say I find it a bit disingenuous when I am having a conversation about race, and someone chooses to chime in “No, you’re wrong - the real issue is class, not race. We need to be discussing that.”

Hence the reason why I titled the series “Has Class Trumped Race?”

I would argue no.

Class and race and two different things which encompass a wide range of experiences and scenarios. They build upon each other. Just like there is no one universal race experience, there is no one universal class experience on any side of the divide. Being upper-class and black is still different from being upper class and white. Being lower-class and white is a different experience from being black and working poor.

And most of this “class” analysis still falls into a few distinct binaries.

There is the separation binary, which indicates that all lower class people in a certain group and all upper class people in a certain group must act in set ways. I hear this most in class discussions in the black community, where someone will mention that certain problems only pertain to lower-class blacks and so we should not include them in the larger racial discussion.

There is also the black-white binary, which much of our racial discourse is based around, and leaves lower class and upper class Asian-Americans, Latino-Americans, and the various generations of people born to immigrants out of the dialogue completely.

There is another binary which dictates that all discussions of race are really discussions of class because all the blacks/asians/latinos they know don’t have race problems, so it must only be a class issue. I generally hear these sentiments when I am dealing with white people who don’t want to talk about race.

The discussion today is not about whether or not class is worth discussing. I think I have made it clear that it is an enormous issue and one that must take a place of importance in our national dialogue, especially considering our current political and economic climate in the United States.

But what I want to know is why so many people want to insert a discussion of class over a discussion of race?

Trackbacks & Pings

Class and the Hong Kong Canuck - Affected by British Colonialism? « Immigration, Assimilation, Ethnicity and All That Jazz on 09 May 2008 at 10:29 am

[…] SARS issue in 2003. Perhaps it has to do with their comfy, middle class lifestyle. So today’s Racialicious post on Class and Race had me wondering. Would Chinese Canadians from Hong Kong feel the same had the British never […]
Does class trump race? « Vivre Magazine.com on 09 May 2008 at 4:02 pm

[…] out what one of my favorite bloggers -”Racialicious”written by Carmen Van Kerckhove has to say about this issue, in her 4 part series. Carmen’s […]

Comments

Shira wrote:

I’m surprised at this question, because it seems to have an obvious answer. If you accept that it’s still possible in the United States to achieve the standard “rags to riches” story (not that I’m saying it is, but bear with me), than none of the problems are your fault. Additionally, all the discrepancies and issues have nothing to do with you, but the vague and nebulous “system,” which you have no real power to change. Finally, it is also possible that the fault lies with the “lower-class” person, who could surely have risen above it all, if she or he had only made the right choices. Therefore you’re benefiting from a system that rewards you through no effort, and only punishes those who “deserve it”.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:21 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

Hmmm…this is going to sound odd, but bear with me: it’s easier to insert class into a discussion because there’s a belief that it’s more amorphous and ahistorical than race. I remember reading a long time ago that many Americans view themselves as basically living in a “classless” society because people believe they’re just variations of the “middle class,” regardless of how much money/assets they have. A corollary to that belief is Americans are very fluid as far as class mobility.

On the other hand, there’s something, for the lack of a better way of saying it, “hard” about discussions about race: Hard realities about, say, race and health (which is tied to class, but the conversations usually aren’t framed that way). Hard histories and legacies about the treatment of people of color by white people in this country. Hard feelings all around.

I hope that makes sense…

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:29 am ¶
Persia wrote:

Agreeing with The Cruel Secretary’s comment. I think it’s also easier for me to talk about class because I have far more hands-on experience about class attitudes. I’ve lived my entire life in Vermont (and yes, I do sometimes question that decision!), and it’s a very white state. But there are a lot of rich people who moved into the community I lived in, and a lot of poor people who are the locals, and a lot of people who climbed up the ladder, and a whole lot of in between. I’m more aware of it because I see it ‘in action’ much more often. (It’s also more likely for people to openly discriminate on the basis of class than the basis of color– growing up, I only heard the word ’sp*c’ once about my Peruvian-American classmate, but I heard variations on ‘poor white trash’ countless times.)

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:38 am ¶
atlasien wrote:

The race->class move is so often made by people who don’t care about class, haven’t studied it well and actually hold very ignorant and regressive ideas about class. They don’t care about class so much as they care about NOT discussing race.

On the other hand, some people — generally, committed socialists and marxists — really are sincere about believing that class trumps race. But there’s a lot of debate in this area, and you’ll also encounter a lot of radical leftists who hold really sophisticated views on how class intersects with race and would never employ something as simplistic as the “trump” figure. It’s more a matter of discussing how race works through class and how class works through race.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:38 am ¶
Slush wrote:

I think it’s also because when talking - in person - about race, it is necessarily slightly confrontational because of the races of whoever is involved. (I don’t mean confrontational as in hostile, just as in you are faced with part of the reality right there). But personal wealth or income is a taboo subject, most especially among elites. And with some exceptions, it’s not immediately visible, especially if just comparing a few people in a room. Thus class is safer to discuss because you can more easily hide your class background and respective biases.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:16 am ¶
bertie wrote:

On why class get inserted into convos on race–I think its because there are no villans in class discussions and in mythical America, anyone can climb into a higher class and overcome any socioeconomic hurdle if they just work hard and are smart. So whatever privilege/debt owed or derived from being of a higher class has been earned/or paid by someone’s hard work.

But with race, there are villans and some folks do have privileges unearned and derived solely based on race. Take Babe Ruth for example; Ruth dominated his era of baseball and is considered to this day one of the greatest hitters. But he never competed against black pitchers, fielders or hitters. Had he had to compete with the black players like Josh Gibson or Satchel Paige maybe he would be just another good player, but not a legend. But because black players were exluded, he benefitted from a lack of competition and is still one of the most recognized names in the game–while Gibson and Paige are mere footnotes. Even if Ruth wasn’t racist, he benefitted from a racist sytem, and arguably this benefit makes him vested in the system.

Thus many discussions about race have a sub-text of recrimination for unearned privileges and unpaid debts one race had over another. And most people do not want to talk about the possibility of having an unearned, unfair privilege, especially if it means that their (or their distant relatives’) benefits were derived from a racist system and that they have a vested interest in the system. So its easier to talk about class.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:52 am ¶
atlasien wrote:

I have to disagree with the general principle that it’s easier to talk about class.

It’s easier to talk about class in a very superficial way, yes, absolutely.

But any deeper discussion of how class is understood and maintained generally gets you branded as an evil communist who doesn’t want other people to be happy.

When people don’t want to REALLY talk about class, they don’t just use race to divert from class, they can also use class itself.

I was amazed a few weeks ago at this dynamic. I made a really simple statement… that Warren Buffet (the billionaire) had said it was crazy that he wasn’t taxed more. Several Republicans exploded. They really viewed Warren Buffett as a class traitor. Their thinking was… how dare he, a rich man, betray them, middle-class people who WANTED to be rich. They called him a hypocrite and a hater. In my worldview, Warren Buffett was actually looking out for their interests, but in their worldview, he was betraying them. They really believed that their interests lay with the top 1% of the 1%, and that the real people who are exploiting them are the bottom 40%.

I don’t want to divert too much away from race myself… race is an incredibly powerful tool of class mystification, I just don’t think it’s the only one.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 10:06 am ¶
queerhapa wrote:

Don’t have time to write a long response, but just wanted to chime in that I recently listened to a podcast lecture by Walter Benn Michaels about his book “The Trouble with Diversity,” that was troubling but also quite provocative. Basically, Michaels would answer that yes, class trumps race (as well as gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). You can read some of his argument here: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_trouble_with_diversity

Posted 09 May 2008 at 10:36 am ¶
Alston wrote:

Atlasien,

Do you know where I could find more information on Buffet’s statements and the backlash?

Posted 09 May 2008 at 10:44 am ¶
Cynthia wrote:

I personally think that between the two it’s easier to gloss over the rules of “class” more so than race. There is definitely (to me) more gray area in dealing with class.

It’s also not seen as being solely one particular group of people, you aren’t born one way and force to stay there (unless you are comfortable with it). Where as, race…you can’t really change it (or shouldn’t want too, rather).

I also think that the American society has gotten so PC that it’s hard for people to even discuss the context of race without people getting up arms about it. Class is easier because a person can move up and down the ranks, it is seen as more fluid so, I’m sure to some it makes it more of a safe topic to broach.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 10:46 am ¶
Jen* wrote:

I was just going to answer with a short:

People can talk about class with a lower chance of being called/ostensibly revealing that they’re racist.

Most of the time, people will choose the class option to purposefully ignore the existence of white privilege. Or if they just don’t believe in it.

Other comments went a lil deeper, and it’s all good. I thought the answer was pretty simple though. People will avoid talking about race cuz they don’t want to be revealed/accused as racists.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 10:49 am ¶
johnjihoonchang wrote:

I made a statement a while back that it was easier for me to cross racial boundaries in my writing than to cross class boundaries. I have friends of various racial backgrounds and get along with them fine, but I find it difficult sometimes to connect with persons outside of the middle class. For me, I certainly don’t believe class trumps race, but rather that it’s another divisor like race that even compounds societal divisions.

Personally, I think trying to shift a racial discussion to class is usually a means to avoid a discussion about race or to talk about something that divides people of all races, so as to speak of something where all races have common ground. Of course, there are people that are definitely interested in class issues, they are exempted from this; similarly, some people just don’t have much experience with race issues (white person living in a virtually all-white community in a small town somewhere–or in TV land, NYC), but they may have experienced class issues and might naively believe, because of limited experience, that class trumps race.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 10:51 am ¶
Sulyp wrote:

Class is what people can aspire to. It’s symbolism is tangible… money. You can touch money, you can change your position in life with money, doors can open for you with money. Money buys you comfort. For many POCphobes, ‘comfort’ is not being forced to interact with them, comfort is having a means of escape to more pleasant places, i.e. White Flight.

Money = Choices

For those without, it is easy to see why they want to be ‘with’.

However…

Race is not something that people can realistically aspire to be “something else”, and even if it was possible few would do it. They wouldn’t admit it, but because of the hierarchy established, no one wants to give up their position, unless they buy into the idea of “moving up”.

For whites who buy into that idea, there isn’t really such a thing as “marrying up” except for in wealth and status.

However, “marrying up” for some POC might symbolize to them the same types of opportunities that just average middle class whites have. Since middle class whites already have those ‘opportunities’, the next thing they are trying to look at is climbing the wealth ladder. They are already at a place on the social ladder that gives them that gives them a closer reach and less barrier to their goal (so to speak) than most of the the random other POC.

Herein lies the problem. Being placed on a “higher rung” is supposed to give them a better vantage point of those “below”. As we all know, many times, this vantage point is taken for granted and believed to be the status quo. For them to have to admit that means that they have to come to terms with the fact that POC near, at, at above them in terms of wealth have often times had to struggle and work harder than them to climb all those societal rungs.

That is a very hard horse-pill to swallow.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:03 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ atlasien: I dig where you’re coming from, especially the part where a person is labeled an “evil communist” if she tries to offer a class analysis bolstered with real-life examples and ramifications. (”Socialist!” is another hissed insult.) And I completely agree that it *is* easier to talk about class in very, very superficial ways. But, IMO, the perception of the American class system by Americans as fluid is the very reason why it’s considered easier to insert it in very superficial way into conversations about race. Class serves as a red herring in some conversations about race.

But let, say, Angela Davis, bell hooks, and you, atlasien, stroll into the post-conference wine-and-cheese chatter or w/ a nuanced analysis about race and class and even some of the most hardcore lefties will change the conversation to the weather or the current baseball season. You’re just that–excuse the cliche–fierce.:-D

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:11 am ¶
atlasien wrote:

@CruelSecretary: Lol… thanks!

@Queerhapa: I’m familiar with the “trouble with diversity” argument. I think Michaels’ argument really falls apart with this sentence:

“Celebrating the diversity of American life has become the American left’s way of accepting their poverty, of accepting inequality.”

That’s completely unsupportable.

The main proponent of essentializing the “culture of poverty”, Ruby Payne, is not a leftist. In fact, most leftists despise her work. Read here for some criticisms. There are many blistering critiques of her idea that poverty is just a way of mind, not a problem that needs to be fixed.

The tendency Michaels criticizes does really exist. It’s just not a problem that can be laid at the door of the left.

He also has an incredibly poor understanding of disability rights. I don’t know much about the area myself, but I’ve read enough to understand the conceptual difference between illness and disability. People who fight for disabled rights certainly aren’t saying that medical technology is bad. That’s a really major distortion of the movement.

Finally, his point that a simplistic appeal for more diversity obscures social justice in the area of class is true. But guess what, simplistic appeals for more diversity obscure social justice in the area of race, too! I think many of us know that diversity is not enough. A society can look visually diverse but be segregated into a rigid caste hierarchy. So his point is ultimately misguided.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:42 am ¶
macintyre wrote:

I’m sometimes guilty of this, but it’s because I don’t want to make essentializing assumptions like “all black people are poor” or “all poor people are black.” I guess that’s more of an intersectionality thing than a “class trumps race” thing though, right? I think another aspect of the “class trumps race” view is that some people see the primary evil with racism is that it makes people poor. Hence, class and race seem inextricable.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

And here’s an interesting question: most of us have identified our own racial background as context to our comments at some point on this blog or others. How many have laid out a point blank number of their total assets as further context of themselves?

Of course, this blog is mostly about race, so it’s no surprise that that has been discussed more. But how many of us have ever had a candid discussion involving a revelation of our exact class status, how much we earn and how much we possess? On a blog, or anywhere other than with family members?

The taboo against this in America is really strong and it both protects against any real fluidity of the kind that people pretend exists in America, as well as perpetuates class privileges with a clear racial disparity.

Anyway I guess I have a lot of opinions about class in America, but I do see them as a relatively distinct dynamic from race issues. Overlapping, for sure.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 12:57 pm ¶
TierList E wrote:

I can only speak for myself, but when I first discovered class issues I got really “class happy” and tried to attribute all societal ills to that. Then I calmed down a bit and filled in the intersectionality of race discrimination and other prejudices.

I think many of the “no race- class” people are also those who identify as “color blind”- they can indirectly deal with a lot of racial inequality issues that they won’t see under the class umbrella since lower economic levels have a disporportionate number of minorities.

I have seen people try to codename racist statements with class vocabulary as well.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 1:03 pm ¶
Persia wrote:

Slush, I don’t for two reasons: one is I genuinely am not always sure which class I’m in, and the other is that annual income means different things in some geographical areas than others.

I think I’m upper middle class but it feels weird labeling myself like that– I’m not always comfortable labeling myself racially, either, of course. Hubby and I own our home, drive two fairly new cars and have tv and cable. We know lots of people with lots more, and lots with lots less.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 1:06 pm ¶
shah8 wrote:

This argument is pretty old.

Ultimately, it goes back to slavery times and resentment of urban blacks (slave and free) who were able to have a modest amount of success.

And yes, arguments about how class trumps races is most typically used to align lower class whites against black people. It has almost *always* been used when redistributionalist policies have been enacted and black and other minorities are set up to be benificieries (usually, simply just by being considered a citizen like any other). Something like this happened during the New Deal era and the post-war era–which generated quite a bit of energy for the black civil rights movements, as black got pushed further and further behind as whites from the same class got ready and priviledged access to New Deal stuff and later aid like the GI bill.

So yes, *especially* when money is involved in the debate, people trying to switch the dialogue from race to class are usually trying to preserve privilege. One should probably presume that anyone who does so, has to prove the soundness of his/her argument before anyone should consider the premis.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

Right, Persia, that’s exactly my point.

You don’t know exactly where you are because no one admits or talks about it. “Upper middle class” describes a vast range of people. On the liberal side, I think it encompasses all those who are somewhere between extremely rich and just straight middle class, but are open-minded enough to at least occasionally appreciate that they have a lot of privileges. On the conservative side, I’m less sure how it falls out.

But if I explain that I come from a small family that owns two houses, am a law student (read: significant earning potential, except for the reduction for public interest lawyer) and then start itemizing my assets or salary history to you to help explain my class status, it seems kind of crude and unnecessary. It’s taboo.

And there’s some meritorious reasons for this, not flaunting your wealth in people’s face, or conversely trying to avoid pity or condescension for not being as wealthy.

But there’s some pretty major drawbacks to it, most saliently where there are huge race and gender pay gaps perpetuated and facilitated by silence about personal wealth and income. There’s some great simple examples of this in Barbara Ehrenreich’s book Nickel and Dimed, where she talks about low wage jobs and how earnings silence allows people to keep working at miserable rates without knowing that they could in fact make more working at the next diner up the street.

Also, wealth silence allows the upper classes to avoid responsibility and transparency about their status relative to others, pretend that they are suffering from taxes, and give peanuts to philanthropy because they are pretending to have less than they do. It helps allow idiocy like someone pointed out above, where people were criticizing Warren Buffet for saying he wasn’t taxed enough. And it especially helps propagate the myth of class fluidity and meritocracy in America, because all class status seems fluid when you have no actual data.

For a little help, we know that the richest 1% own 33% of privately held wealth in America. Well that’s great, but who are the richest 1%? Well I think it might be anyone whose household makes more than $200,000 per year, or something like that. I think (by which I mean, I read it somewhere but can’t find it, so I could be remembering wrong) that if your household makes $165,000 or more per year, OR has more than $500,000 in assets, you are in the richest 5% of the country.

Here’s an interesting article about it:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Sorry, I realize this rant is a bit derailed from race-analysis. But it has lots of room for questioning more closely how race is involved.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 2:20 pm ¶
Cara wrote:

Why do so many people want to focus more on class than on race?……..

Because white America is more comfortable discussing class, than race. [Those who are willing to confront race head on are a minority; whether pro-POC or anit-POC.] It’s an easier way to insert poor whites into the discussion. Like some have said earlier, it makes the ‘rags to riches’ story more plausible. The concept is easier to accept than the fact that even poor whites profit from ‘white priviledge;’ and are sometimes just as guilty of “white entitilement” beliefs as their wealthy white counterparts. In the south there is a saying [[which originated from a radio sermon aired in the early ’30s and 40s in the Blue Ridge Mountain area…]]; where the paster, though empoverished himself and responsible for a ‘flock’ of poor whites in that area, says, “You know folks, every morning I wake up and I thank God I’m white!” Therefore, there is some connection made by poor and rich alike, that there is some privilege associated with whiteness, even though they may be among the lowerst social stratus of the white majority in the U.S.

Evn poor whites, don’t have to address the race issue; because even in their world those issues don’t matter and they don’t have to care. [[Though some do care, they don’t have to live with the historical implications like POC .]] They are the majority in the country, so pop-culture and the media follow suite. It’s just away for the nation to continue to slumber in denile…..The white privilege of the past implies white priviledge in the present. And that topic is something that professionals of all colors don’t want to address. It simply is too much of an uncomfortable and hurtful issue.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶
queerhapa wrote:

atlasien, thanks for breaking that down! my problem with michaels’ argument is that he sets up this impossible choice: diversity OR economic equality. as if working towards one means nullifying work towards the other.

and this is the problem i find with this whole discussion. why race OR class? sometimes the issue is race, sometimes it’s class, sometimes it’s both operating at the same time. sometimes people code racial issues in class terms, sometimes people code class issues in race terms, and so on. both race and class are incredibly hard to discuss, but i don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that one “trumps” the other, even if we’re talking about which is most dominant in public discussions.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 3:44 pm ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:

I agree with the sentiments that class is thrown into discussions on race to derail them, but then is only discussed superficially. I also find that people do not make class discussions personal. I find class more difficult to talk about myself. I don’t even have a good vocabulary for it. I don’t know what class to consider myself. My family has gone from thrift store shopping (out of necessity, not trend) to expensive vacations and everything in between. I live on my own now, and I’m currently a grad student with little money, but when I’m a doctor, I’ll have incredible earning potential (I still can’t quite wrap my head around that). So, what class am I in? What class did I grow up in? I don’t know. I guess I moved within a stratum of middle class.

And perhaps because there is a supposed element of choice (as Shira pointed out), there is somehow more shame involved in discussing class discrimination. For me personally, I will be the first to call out someone who using a racial slur in front of me, but I have heard people discuss “trailer trash” and let it go, even though I grew up in a mobile home. I also know that people don’t expect me as a brown woman to have lived in a “trailer” and that their conception of what my home and my neighborhood were like is likely very different from the reality. My parents’ home is lovely; it just happens to have been built in 2 big pieces that were shipped in on a truck bed. I don’t mention where I grew up to friends, and I’m sure some are surprised when they visit me and see my neighborhood. But I don’t really know how to confront people’s stereotypes about class as well as I do with race. I don’t wear my class on my sleeve (or my skin), so I have not been forced to practice defending it.

I think I also tend to avoid deep class discussions because I am aware of a bias that I have against really wealthy people, which I am trying to work on and am thus wary to initiate conversations about class. One of the closest friends I’ve made since moving to Chicago 2 years ago is a white male with a trust fund. His parents live on a yacht. Our friendship has been both a growing experiences for me to get over biases, and a challenge when our economic differences loom — like when he wants to go somewhere expensive to eat, and I can’t afford it and he gladly offers to pay…. but doesn’t understand why I don’t always want to accept him treating. But he has definitely been a positive force because I find that the more individuals you interact with in X group that you have preconceived notions about, the less likely you are to view them as a monolithic entity.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 5:09 pm ¶
Baraka wrote:

Perhaps because one might change one but not quite so easily the other?

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:30 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

Have apples trumped oranges?

Class is worth talking about wrt race - it affects personal interactions. I find it easier to interact with a college or graduate educated black person than a high school dropout black (or white) person. (I am a graduate level educated white woman from a privileged background). There is a level of shared experiences and shared expectations - one can talk about new restaurants, a play, kids in the same school district, home remodeling sagas, - things that require disposable income - as well as “shop” (work stuff). One doesn’t talk with people on the economic edge about such things with any specificity - crass! Of course there are plenty of topics which don’t presume wealth - sports (everyone has a radio), broadcast tv, politics, and so on. This all sounds trivial, but personal interactions make it more likely that race can be discussed within economic classes than crossing economic classes.

Class is also worth talking about in conjunction with race, concerning the development of hypersegregated areas of black poor people. Poor whites aren’t as segregated by economy, may reside in adequately financed school districts, may have easier access to public amenities. I think a lot of white people just don’t get it that public services, libraries and parks, availability of foods like fresh produce, general lack of safety make life in the urban ghetto much more difficult than life for a poor person in a mixed - income neighborhood/ jurisdiction.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:35 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:

I think obsessions with class come from several different directions. On the one hand, a lot of white leftists like to focus on it as a factor isolated from race or gender, I’m assuming because they don’t want to acknowledge their own privilege. I was also once told that focusing on class revolution would automatically cover race because all people of color are poor, which is an interesting delusion to ponder.

From a different angle I’ve also met people who like to focus on class because they find it to be changeable, as opposed to race or gender identities, and because they like to argue that everyone can better themselves by magically climbing the ladder. But who can change and how fast?

The problem I see when taking race away from class is that the alleged fluidity of class is absolutely shaped by race. My father, for example, was one of 3 children raised by a disabled war widow in mostly poor circumstances, but he was a white male baby boomer with a belief in all the bullshit of the American dream and he was able to turn his class status around to the degree that his own children had privileges he never would have dreamed of. In a sense he ‘earned’ everything by working hard but its important to recognize the fact that his ability to work in higher paid labor was ‘paid for’ by his race and gender, and the sense of entitlement that went with them. White people who transition in class very rapidly often fail to realize that its their race that makes this possible. POC of my dad’s generation who have managed to accumulate as much as he did had to work twice as hard, as did a good number of women. The climb to the top is a process hugely accelerated by race and gender privileges, especially when combined.

I think the potential for class fluidity among whites is especially well illustrated by the phenomenon of the ‘nouveau riches’, a trend I’ve only seen exemplified among white men and their families. I come from Alberta, the Texas of Canada. There’s a huge boom there right now because of tar sands oil projects but the only people who can access the jobs available are white heterosexual or closeted men who can handle working in seclusion with all white groups of men without fear of racist encounters or sexual assault… This makes for very stark contrasts.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 12:49 am ¶
Chanita wrote:

Funnily enough, a few days ago I came across a website that had a link to a lecture by Tim Wise, and he was talking about this very issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc

Posted 10 May 2008 at 1:03 am ¶
Lisa wrote:

I think it is a fundamental misconstruction to even try to divorce race and class (and gender).

Everyone’s experiences and opportunities are informed by all - some more by one, some more by another.

I am the kid of a single welfare mom. I grew up surrounded by the children of university professors and doctors. I am caucasian; my childhood friends are 2G east and west Asian. My mom continues to pretent she’s not poor - mostly by living on loans and gifts from extended family. She is from a rich family herself, but had exhausted all of their reserves well before I came along.

I attended an Ivy League school, on scholarship, and it was hell as I had to waitress my way through, and remain deeply in debt. It was assumed that, because I am white, I had a rich family taking care of me. I now battle to stay lower middle class, and am still figuring out all of the “rich dad” financial skills that are supposedly ingrained in white folk.

I think both race and class are underdiscussed in America as well as internationally. Here in China, racism amongst different regional ethnicities is enormous but mostly ignored because “we’re all han Chinese” - yeah, whatever. Class is even bigger, but remains very colored by the race/regional differences that the government pretends don’t exist.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 1:23 am ¶
Chris wrote:

I find it’s a classic defense along the lines of “but what about…” that people pull when talking about any kind of oppression they’re not comfortable with. I’ve seen people also pull “But what about race” when talking about sexism, “But what about sexism” when talking about race, “But what about heterosexism” etc. etc.

Mostly, people pull out a “but what about” whenever the discussion lands on some way in which they’re privileged or acting a fool.

More specific to class vs. race, white folks like to pull that out because it’s a universal problem around the globe, therefore, it’s easy to talk about class without being divided within the conversation on a real level. Like, you bet most people would probably not bring up a serious discussion of class with a boss, or someone who is homeless.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 11:27 am ¶
drydock wrote:

I have never really heard anyone say class trumps race. I’m a little late here but the discussion might be better framed as class politics vs identity politics, which i
I have heard a lot of debate around, me being sympathetic to the former.

Posted 11 May 2008 at 3:29 am ¶
Jesse wrote:

I’ve gone over some of the comments here and I kind of can’t get where people say discussing class is easier in America — I mean, I’ve lived outside the US and this country is positively blind when it comes to talking about class. The idea that wealth is hereditary (it is– take a look at any study of incomes across generations) gets a funny look from most people. The opposition to the estate tax is an expression of this blindness– that dynasties are an undesirable thing in a democracy. (Even as we celebrate them in the tabloids).

Maybe I am crazy, but it’s interesting that in Britain, class differences are front and center, and government policy acknowledges how inflexible the system is. Here, people assume the system is flexible (i.e that people are mobile across class). Even though the US actually has less upward mobility than anywhere in the EU.

As to class w/r/t race, it isn’t an either-or question. The weird images Americans have (yes I am an American, but I only realized how weird some of my mental images were when I left the country for a while) are all bound up together.

For example, many of the stereotypes of dark-skinned Mexicans are based on the fact that those Mexicans were poor, and thus were lazy (because in the Calvinist worldview, which shapes most people’s worldview in America, being poor is of course your own fault for being immoral/lazy/shitless). The idea that the Mexicans were systematically shut out of certain occupations and had their land stolen doesn’t get into the discussion. So we have a class issue entwined with a race issue.

Now, there’s all sorts of problems on the left discussing race. But to be fair, those of us who see ourselves as socialists will say that once you deal with the class problems — for example, if everyone had equal access to health care — then it’s a little easier to deal with the race problems. In fact, sometimes dealing with one helps a lot with the other and vice versa. But in the US, you really can’t completely separate the two.

Here’s an example: once upon a time Catholics and Jews weren’t really coded as “white.” But the GI Bill sent hundreds of thousands of those people to college after WW II. A whole generation essentially took over political power, and culminated with Kennedy. Now, for an Irish Catholic to not be considered a white person is simply silly. But a big reason for that “re-coding” is class — Irish and Italians and Jews became successful, largely because you could change your name and “pass,” and there were enough of them to take over local political machines and build entire economically viable communities.

So which came first, the chicken or the racial egg? Neither.

Posted 12 May 2008 at 12:02 am ¶
Joseph wrote:

Hm. I’m brand-new on this board and I swear I am not trying to pee all over this but: I think the either/or way this question is framed just perpetuates an unproductive opposition between race and class. It is really hard to talk about one without dealing with the other at some point. And I agree with atlasien (and others) that only superficial class arguments are “easier” to deal with than race. A real conversation about class is no fun summer vacation from race matters.

I completely agree that sometimes white people use class to divert discussion away from race, absolutely. But the…potentially more pointed… question that raises for me is, “Why do white people love to shut down conversations about race?” Period. Which is not necessarily about the validity of class arguments at all. So why focus on it?

Posted 12 May 2008 at 12:52 am ¶
Frances wrote:

You might want to check out http://www.classism.org. They have a race and class intersections coordinator doing work around these issues.

Posted 13 May 2008 at 10:01 am ¶
mylie wrote:

I have to say that I don’t completely agree. for current adults, no class has not trumped race. For them, race is still, I would say, the bigger issue.
However, speaking as an upper-middle class black teenager, I would say that for the up and coming generation, it’s a lot closer. I’ve never had an issue with race in my life. No one has ever called me a name or assumed that I wasn’t quite as intelligent as other students (though I did suspect one of my teachers, I’ll admit. Still, she is not part of the generation of which I’m speaking). And my experience is not uncommon.
Yes, many of the black students do all sit together in the cafeteria (while many of the whites eat outside), for the most part, it’s low-income blacks at other low-income white inside. Outside, while there are plenty of upper-middle to upper class whites, you’ll find blacks there of the same economic status. I’m not trying to present this as better; it’s a sad reality, but it is what’s true.
Race barely matters to the vast majority of my classmates. Most associate with people of all different races. But do they associate with people of different socio-economic status? Not so much. In a discussion about race, one of my classmates (who is white and Ecuadorean/Latina), she, though she does not know me very well, would say that I probably couldn’t speak to this or that issue about low-income black people, because I’m in a different class than they are. And it’s true that I don’t know this or that about them. She identified me more as “upper-middle class” than as part of a race.
Basically, what I’m trying to say, is that more and more often, young people are identified and identify themselves by their economic status, not by their race.

Posted 19 May 2008 at 8:33 pm ¶