On Swimming Pools, Harvard Arrests, and Flash Point Racism
By Guest Contributor dumi, originally published at Uptown Notes
For the past few weeks, my inbox has been inundated with references to Whites Only swimming pools in Philadelphia, the arrest of Henry Louis Gates and things of the like. With each subsequent email, I’ve been reminded “this is post-racial America” 1, 2. The type of tongue-in-cheek commentary, I imagine, is meant to elucidate the continued significance of race in America. Unfortunately, I see three issues with this: 1) these emails and posts tend to go to the choir (this is not a new point so I won’t go into it), 2) these cases are extreme examples of racism and exclusion in contemporary United States, which makes them easy to dismiss for everyday people and 3) they don’t demonstrate the ways that race operates perniciously beneath the surface to include some and exclude many. I do think these cases need to be highlighted so pool owners, police, and everyday people can be aware certain behaviors will not be tolerated, but they’re also all to easy to disassociate from for the majority of Americans who identify with the idea of “postraciality.” They’re rationalized away as the actions of “a few bad apples” rather than be seen as symptoms of the national disease of racism. These incidents become flash points in the media and even talking points in our commentary on race and reality, but the issue with a flash point is that it is the lowest level at which our sensibilities around race will flare brightly, but then they quickly dim. Unfortunately, inequalities of race have not dimmed, nor should our fire to expose and fight them.
Now this is not going to be a “complain and blame” post, instead, I’d like to offer some humble suggestions (or as humble as one can be if they’re writing on a blog which is kinda an egotistical thing to start with, but ya’ll know what I’m saying). It is critical that we begin to talk about race in ways that expose the subtle fabric of inequality. While it’s easy to explain why Skip Gates’ harassment and subsequent arrest were wrong and wrongheaded, it’s more difficult to explain how policies leave many innocent men and women sitting in jail or on death row due to false accusations and procedural bureaucracy. It’s easy to point on the wrongness of exclusion from the Valley Swim club but it’s more difficult to explain why suburban schools are almost as and sometimes more unequal than urban schools, in part due to their exclusion of Blacks from equal educational resources. It’s easy to suggest that race matters when Sotomayor is berated in her confirmation hearings, but it is more difficult to explain the significance of critical race theory to understanding and interpreting the law. As scholars, as activists, and as citizens we’ve give up the project of relaying the complex conditions to the masses who need to be reminded not that race still matters, but the various ways that it still matters and what role all can play in racial justice.
I think it is wholly possible to take the flash point moments and deepen dialogue, but its rare that it happens. Instead, we recycle old dialogues on race and its significance when more complex racism(s) exist. The reality is that we’ve got to get equally complex in our discussions of the intersections of race, class, gender and sexuality (to name a few). If we are serious about “justice for all” we must update our discourse and activism. Because as Brother Malcolm said, “The White power structure is just as much interested in maintaining slavery as it was 100 years ago. Only now they use modern methods of doing so.” Let’s expose the modern methods as well as the old!
*footnote if you’ve never seen the dialogue between Malcolm X, Wyatt Tee Walker James Farmer, and Alan Morrison do yourself a favor and watch it!
**Shout out to Native Notes for being on the same page with that quote!
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
RCHOUDH wrote:
I agree 100% with this post that we need to deepen the dialogue on race. That in turn means we have to become more educated about the complex issues surrounding race in American society.
This is where things get tough though because our educational system doesn’t prepare us to think of issues in their complexity. We are taught about the “flashpoint” aspects of racism, about the overt forms it takes but never about the covert forms it takes and permeates throughout society today. That is why for many Americans the idea of racism still existing in society in a covert fashion is unfathomable to them. I’ll admit to being unaware of the covert nature of racism until I came upon Racialicious, a great source of knowledge and dialogue regarding race in society. Most people I knew (including myself) have never taken courses on Race theory and the like. So it’s important to first educate ourselves and engage in intelligent dialogue about the matter with like minded people (like we already do here on Racialicious) before going out and explaining to others how pervasive racism still is in society and what we should be doing to stop it. I can tell you one thing it’s not an easy job but it’s well worth the effort.
Posted 27 Jul 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:
I just want to clarify that when I mean for the most part that people have not been properly educated about the complexities of race in society, I mean that we aren’t taught about it from a young age; while it’s true that most colleges offer courses on race 101 and the like, these courses are for the most part not mandatory to take and so I know students either don’t bother taking it, or if they do they’re just taking it for that “easy A” so they may not necessarily take the time out to really sit down and contemplate about what they’ve learned through those “easy A” classes. That’s why it’s important to teach about race (and gender, class, etc) from when children (particularly those of high school age) are young and impressionable.
Posted 27 Jul 2009 at 1:36 pm ¶
daniel cunningham wrote:
One of the biggest things that sticks out in my mind re: discussions like this is the fact that something in the proposed discussion on race has been completely lost, if it ever truly existed at all.
Race, as a concept is so tenuous, and so malleable, that it becomes –in a the ‘cold, hard fact’ way– difficult to hold on to it as a ‘concept’ at all.
It’s like the quote on pornography, “I know it when I see it.” But that seems like an awfully weak test… for something people apply repeatedly every single day, and so freely. I’ve gotten into a bit of trouble (here and elsewhere) for attempting to apply this belief (admit it, all you all argue against racism, but apply race freely and generally without much meta-regard, though I think I exclude the original poster from this.) But as much as I see that I am pragmatically wrong, I wish there was an equal belief in the ideal behind what I’m talking about. And, harshly perhaps, I do not see it… or see it all to infrequently.
We’re off track, folks. As much value as there is in discussions attempting to roll back and buttress against and dismantle the further harms of racism, as pragmatic and important as that is, I often feel desperate for the fact that I essentially never hear a call for the re-consideration of the very concept. Why does no one attack the basis of racism? It’s not “people don’t like people with different color/hair/religion/history/nationalism/ethnicity/language/money/sect/tribe/politics/etc.” or all of the myriad definitions or sub-definitions. Look real, real hard at the very definition of race and you will hopefully be appalled, because the entire discussion –even these good ones here on Racialicious– rests upon the assumption of something false. This, to try to trivially sum it up, is what leads to such disconnects as applying race to “Africans” and “African-Americans” and “Obviously-Mixed -race-African-Americans” in subtly and not-so-subtly different ways. Not merely that they are teated differently or have different experiences, but that the very definition of race is applied differently. And to the extent that is true, the hopes expressed by and held by so many simply will not be realized. Hrrrmmm… you can’t there from here. I’ve tried to disavow analogies, but: as much as everyone is focused on getting everyone a car, a car isn’t going to get you to the damn moon.
Not the best explanation of where I’m.. hoping from. But I hope to one day write this up more completely and post to this blog. We’ll see… I’m hardly succinct and hardly a word-smith, but I think it’s a question worth posing, even if stated in ‘corporate speak’. Where’s the vision, what’s the plan?
P.S.: I’ll give the same warning I’ve previously given, today I am on some very happy drugs (post-surgery) so though I just spent an hour –literally– editing this, I apologize if it’s rambling.
Posted 27 Jul 2009 at 5:06 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
@RCHOUDH–
I think the reason so many people see the kind of classes you talk about as easy As is because they are.
I was forever scarred by my experience switching from the sciences to the humanities. Now, I think there are a lot of darn smart people in the humanities. But after I made the change in college (I was a so-so science student) I was appalled.
All I had to do was throw out the right polysyllabic words, (”deconstruction” was always a winner) and go through some pretty mundane mental gymnastics and voila! A grade.
In the sciences, one of the things that makes it so challenging is that there is no room for this kind of bullshit. In lab, your setup either works or it doesn’t — it doesn’t matter what the professor thinks of you, or if he is a Klansman or Edward Said. Maxwell’s equations work the same for everybody.
On the flip side, you can’t bullshit your way through it. My physics final, for instance, was just six problems. If you didn’t know what the hell you were talking about then that page is blank. I didn’t know my stuff on at least one of them and got hammered.
I’m not saying there aren’t institutional problems with race in the sciences, lord knows. But one of the liberating things about it is that with the right mental tools, you can kick ass. And there isn’t any way for the white kid to hide behind a lot of the fallacious arguments people make about darker-skinned folks. There is a reason that no serious biologist or anthropologist takes seriously the concept of racial inferiority/superiority anymore, and the ones that do are fringe people. (Remember Charles Murray? He was slapped down hard by people actually in the sciences — it was only the non-scientists who took him at all seriously). It’s because fundamentally, the ideas didn’t hold up. They couldn’t predict anything. They weren’t logical or measurable.
In a lot of classes that rely on critical race or gender theory though, I found that the quality of thought and argument was pretty weak. I liked it in one sense, as I think ideas are fun things, but one thing that the physical sciences impress upon you is that who says something doesn’t matter jack. It’s what they are saying. If your idea doesn’t work because of who someone is, there is something wrong with the idea.
That mental tool is awfully useful in bullshit detection as well as enabling you to take a step back and ask yourself whether you are suffering from one or more pretty common mistakes: argument from personal experience, for instance (you never know if yours is representative), or argument from incredulity (I don’t believe it therefore it is wrong). Science has a load of cool logical tools that applied well go a long way towards clearing out the mental chaff.
But overspecialization has given us people in college for whom basic algebra is like some kind of wizard’s code. For whom the scientific method is as alien as learning to speak Tamasheq.
That does a gigantic amount of damage to the people coming in to study race theory — or anything else. I don’t think people are stupid, bt I do think that everybody should be required to learn geometric proofs, for instance, before they exit junior high school. That exercise in logic alone is invaluable.
But I found that too many college-educated kids took the line back in high school that science and math were hard — so forget it. I am talking about college-educated, largely white kids here, too. I shudder to think of the effect on black kids, who have the lack of role models, et cetera to deal with. (I joke that Neil DeGrasse Tyson should be called the most important black man in America today).
Again I am not saying that people in the humanities are stupid. I am saying that a lot of the field lacks the winnowing process that physicists have to go through. There is a reason that the Sokal Hoax was played on the humanities people by a physicist and not the other way around.
And this all feeds into why it’s hard to have discussions about race (or anything else).
On another note, one thing I want to ask: I live in New York City. I work with a pretty white crowd (well, sort of, my workplace has a certain amount of diversity in it). I have never, ever heard the term “post racial America” except from pundits. That is, I have never, in thousands of conversations leading up to the election and after, heard another white person use the term. In fact, I have never heard it in conversation at all.
Now, maybe my experience, living where I do, isn’t representative. But I find it odd that the only people who seem to care about the term are editorial writers. So my question is: are we letting those people set the agenda, and is it possible the post racial America bit is the Lambada of American politics? (A “fad” that exists in the minds of marketers only).
Posted 30 Jul 2009 at 7:28 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Daniel:
If you’re arguing from a critical race theory perspective you don’t attack the scientific basis of race anymore because it’s a pointless tactic in the vast majority of battlefields. The scientific basis of race has already been totally discredited, and arguing it all over again is like arguing with moon-landing-hoax people or birthers.
The social existence of race is another matter. Arguing that race doesn’t exist on a social level isn’t just a bad tactic, it’s actually self-defeating.
It’s sort of like someone saying, “God doesn’t exist. Therefore, the Catholic Church doesn’t exist. Therefore, the Notre Dame cathedral doesn’t exist. In fact, I’m going to walk right through the wall of this non-existent cathedral in front of me. OW!”
If you want to dismantle the social construction of race, you have to convince people that it exists in the first place. Racism is tied heavily to white supremacy which is tied to the idea that whiteness is the invisible standard: white people don’t have a race, everyone else does. This idea has to be destroyed through constant, tiring explanations and education efforts.
I think the road ahead is fairly clear. We need to promote racial dialogue, racial realism and discourage stupidity and denialism both among people of color and white people. The main difference between the two is that people of color are more opening to listening but have less power, whereas white people are less open but have more power.
What you are arguing puts all the burden of people of color. We’re supposed to abandon race before white people? Even though relying on racial solidarity has produced great civil rights advances and positive outcomes?
And it’s very unfair to single out African-Americans for your example. Slaveowners did their best to strip African ethnicity and culture from their slaves. The ethnicity that many African-Americans built back up is tied heavily to racial solidarity. Unlike white people, it is not easy for African-Americans to separate race and ethnicity. When a white person says something like “I don’t think of myself as white, I’m ____ instead” and breezily assumes that a black person can do the same, that’s a really arrogant and ignorant attitude.
@Jess: I happen to agree with some of the things you’re saying, but your argument against arguing from anecdotes would have been a lot stronger if you’d ended it with an example of serious sociology… instead of with another anecdote.
And no, the average person on the street doesn’t use the phrase “post-racial America”. Instead, they use different code words like “whiners” “PC” “race pimps” and so on to reference the same idea. Try reading the comments sections of unmoderated news articles for research.
Posted 30 Jul 2009 at 9:28 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:
@atlasien: YES. Thank you.
::: applauds :::
Posted 30 Jul 2009 at 10:05 am ¶
Carrie English wrote:
If you are interested in the controversy over Gates’ arrest, you should watch a special live episode of Basic Black, PBS Boston’s series on the African American experience, tonight at 7:30 p.m. at http://www.wgbh.org/basicblacklive. Our panel will be reprising last week’s discussion on the topic, as well as addressing other issues affecting people of color.
Posted 30 Jul 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶
eric daniels wrote:
Isn’t it time that African- Americans developed their own pools that can be safe from gangs, criminals and the like. Trying to use someone else’s pool is a losing game and only leads to this type of racism. As African- Americans we should be baking our own bread instead of trying to get these racist people to accept our children in their space. Are we so weak in 2009 that we would rather hope for racial harmony then self- determination?
Posted 30 Jul 2009 at 7:37 pm ¶
Davina wrote:
Atlasien at #5:
“If you want to dismantle the social construction of race, you have to convince people that it exists in the first place. Racism is tied heavily to white supremacy which is tied to the idea that whiteness is the invisible standard: white people don’t have a race, everyone else does. This idea has to be destroyed through constant, tiring explanations and education efforts.”
Absolu-fucking-lutely. Especially the bit about constant, tiring explanations. It saddens me how there’s so much constructive, incredible dialogue going on at Racialicious but in real life – at least, in my real life – a lot of the time people just don’t understand… I think part of it has to do with being equipped with the right vocabulary, which is why I’m grateful to all the excellent writers on here. Giving us the ammo to keep fighting.
Posted 31 Jul 2009 at 5:24 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:
@ Jess
I agree with much of what you say; teaching children to think logically should be stressed from a very young age. And it would help for social science theories to tighten up their premises and conclusions better so that people won’t claim to not agree with much of what these theories posit.
Posted 01 Aug 2009 at 11:56 am ¶