Comments

1. Tracey wrote:

   Thank you, thank you and I love this post.
   I think that qoute creates a false dichotomy which ignores the fact that if anti-racism isn’t addressed, creating changes that help black people becomes extremely difficult. I do believe that community action is essential and community support is much needed. Relying on outside forces for internal change will accomplish little and am an advocate of internally mobilizing change.
   But outside of that, when it comes to things like Harlem hospital, inequalities in sentencing, police profiling and targeting (black ppl represent 80% of arrests for crack while making up only 40% of users),etc. it is necessary to realize they are a result of racism. So talking about keeping public hospitals open and well funded, getting better funding/resources/trained teachers for schools in black neighborhoods, focusing more on prevention and restorative justice,etc. without addressing the need to fight racism is counter-productive. No matter how organized you are, convincing racists to pump money,programs and support into communities of color isn’t going to work out well.
   It is no secret that Reagan meant blacks when he talked about “welfare queens” (even though the majority receiving welfare are white women with young children you’ll never guess that from the way it’s talked about in the media and even so-called black leaders play into the rhetoric it is a black issue), and let us not forget the antics of Lee Atwater and the Bush’s campaign’s attempts to make S.C. voters think McCain had an “illegitimate” black child.
   Also, this throwing under the bus of anti-racism doesn’t even begin to address the pyschological effects of both overt and subtle racism and the way in which they manifests themselves through the behavior of people, as well as the way they affect self-esteem, self-perception and self-worth. When a teacher thinks that a kid is going to be trouble because they’re black, that shows and the student picks up on it. When black bodies are consistently commodified and “black culture” manufactured and sold, yeah that freakin matters.
   Racism isn’t just an abstract, it affects the way people vote, the programs they support, the funding they provide, and the amount of investment they are willing to put into a community. Coalition building is huge and necessary, but POC shouldn’t have to rely on bringing white people into a movement for it to work, and in some communities and on some issues it still won’t work.
   Also, back to the false dichotomy, focusing on racism doesn’t exclude one from working on many issues of economic and social justice. And I alos think approaches that don’t recognize racism are asking racial identity and reality to be ignored in some cases.

   Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 2:53 pm ¶

2. Tracey wrote:

   Oh yes and,
   I also want to clarify that I do not believe that waiting on white people to recognize our humanity is an effective solution, but ignoring racism ignores the economic and political realities in which we live. Also, seeing as how most people are lovers of free market capitalism and radicalism and direct action seem to be counter-productive to the way in which they want to live their lives, anti-racism needs to retain a place in movements for economic and social justice. In addition, the institutions we fight against have racism structured into them so if we are to address them, we must address racism.

   Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 3:09 pm ¶

3. SAL wrote:

   Ta-Nehisi Coates’s career depends on a very specific audience, one which he seems to go out of his way to mollify in most of his writing. I would take any of his “messages from the black mount” with a grain of salt. His reference to Douglass, a Negro intellectual who appealed to the same sort of audience Coates appeals to today, speaks volumes. We really, really, really need to grow up and get real about race and class in this country (a girl can dream) so that our children and grandchildren can move on to other things–like saving the planet. Making nice about racism to preserve white hegemony does a disservice to all of the souls whose lives were–or are being–destroyed by it.

   Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶

4. Winn wrote:

   Coates’ comments sound those tones of personal responsibility and weariness with racism that resonates with whites and some POC who are “tired” of hearing about racism, who love to sound the alarm about how “white guilt” undermines the willingness of whites to be allies in the fight for social justice, and who are either uncomfortable with or dismissive of the conflict of racism, both personal and systemic, with achievement of the “practical interests” of POC and the nation as a whole. As other posters have noted, racism impacts the passage of legislation, counting and representation of the marginalized in the census, the drawing of congressional districts, property tax bases that provide educational funding, resource support for before and after school programs, real estate sales, commercial business distribution, access to healthy food sources, on and on, ad infinitum. Extricating racism from the fight for real social, economic and criminal justice in this country is not only impossible and illogical, but to suggest that it is both plausible and preferable smacks of pandering.

   Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 5:31 pm ¶

5. J wrote:

   At no point in this excerpt does Coates’ advocate for tossing anti-racism aside. Rather, I read Coates statement, “My interest in anti-racism is passing. My interest in black people is essential” not only as sharing a personal self-reflection, but also as highlighting another way of thinking about how to fight for a more just world. Some people enter the world of action and change through frameworks and perspectives popular within “anti-racism,” and some enter from the day they are born, as a means of survival. I believe that there are some solid and useful ways of looking at the world that are popular in the anti-racist movement, and I also believe that it takes a multi-faceted front to affect change in the face of racism. I also believe that anti-racism organizing can be incredibly effective if we are willing, from time to time, to lay aside the specific analyses and lenses we hold dear, in order to understand where each other is coming from. There are many different places to take action from. Within the Anti-racism movement there are many of these places, but it does not encompass all of them.

   Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 8:39 pm ¶

6. ashlynn wrote:

   White people are exhausted? Are you kidding me? Can we say, appeasement?

   Posted 14 Oct 2009 at 11:26 pm ¶

7. PatrickInBeijing wrote:

   Great post Jamelle! I agree.

   Frankly we can’t divorce anti-racism work from the broader struggle for the interests of white people, either. Look at the attacks on ACORN, and how race is being used to block banking reform.

   Personally, I am not interested in guilt, I am interested in justice. Karl Marx said it quite well, “Labor in a white face cannot be free as long as labor in a Black face is enslaved.”

   The thing is, the right doesn’t need to be specific about race, they can use code words, and their audience gets it. If the left tries to pretend that race is not central to what they are struggling about, it doesn’t fool anyone and allows the right to triumph (see the last 40+ years of federal political history).

   Keeping anti-racism work as central to the broader struggles for a just sustainable society is necessary because it is the ONLY way to win those struggles.

   I am white, and if some white folk are tired of “hearing” about racism, some of us are also tired of being surrounded by it.

   Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 6:01 am ¶

8. atlasien wrote:

   @J: I totally agree with you.

   I don’t see anything wrong with what Coates is saying. It all depends on your definition of “anti-racism”.

   If you think that anti-racism simply means convincing white people to stop oppressing everyone else, then absolutely, I agree with Coates. I’ve read several pieces by him where he convincingly critiques his earlier philosophy as a young man, which he describes as a naive form of afrocentrism combined with blaming white people for all social ills.

   The problem with spending all your energy shouting at white people and blaming white people is that a) most of the time they’re just going to ignore you b) it doesn’t leave you any time to work on yourself, or work on allegiances with other non-white people. Blaming white people also does nothing to address internalized racism.

   White people are never going to be able to fix our internalized racism, that’s something people of color have to do on our own.

   I think Janelle is using a slightly different definition of anti-racism, and arguing for making it broader. I agree with that too!

   I like a broad definition of anti-racism that includes trying to convince and reach white people, but also includes trying to reach and convince other people, plus educating ourselves.

   Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 9:45 am ¶

9. Jess wrote:

   I’d have to say Ta-Nehesi Coates is touching on something that has bugged me for a while.

   That is the problem of defining much of the anti-racism work as what you are against.

   Look, I don’t know anyone — even any white people — who say “racism! Woo hoo! Love it!”

   I mean, really, do you know any? Anyone? Have you ever run into a white person who thinks racism is a good thing? No, I bet.

   So you call out someone for what is racist behavior, perhaps. Then what? I really mean that. Then what? You feel better? OK, but that doesn’t change jack.

   Just like you can’t get too concerned about white people’s feelings — ‘cuz it isn’t about anyone’s feelings — you can’t get too caught up in your own sense of righteousness and justice. OK, you’ve just told a bunch of folks they are racists. The freakazoids the GOP has cultivated don’t care, so I don’t bother anymore, and telling someone they are evil because they benefit from a system they didn’t invent or ask for isn’t terrifically helpful either, IMO.

   And as racism is fundamentally an issue of power, addressing the power — whether you refer to race directly in the process or not — goes a hell of a long way to addressing that.

   Think of it this way: if everyone had access to health care NQA and didn’t have to pay for it, then the racial disparities in outcomes would tend to disappear, since the access problem would be largely solved. There would still be issues in doctor-patient interaction, but that is relatively speaking easier to address.

   Or if every worker was protected with the kind of relatively civilized laws they have in say, Germany, it’s a lot harder to use the power of being the owner of a business to reinforce institutional racism.

   If every school was funded the same way no matter where it was – say $X per student state wide, no extras unless everyone get them — then that deals with a lot of the issues in racial disparities there. It doesn’t solve them, but it sure helps.

   I think that’s what Coates is getting at.

   Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 9:56 am ¶

10. G.D. wrote:

    SAL: if you’ve read TNC’s stuff in the past, i think you see he that he explicitly eschews the “messages from the black mount” thing you’re criticizing him for. He takes great pains to couch his commentary as his opinion and a product of his experiences.

    I dunno. I think that ad hominem bit goes way too far, and doesn’t actually address anything dude said.

    Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 11:05 am ¶

11. Winn wrote:

    @Jess,

    The kind of equal access to resources and protections you advocate, that we all want, are explicitly what is decried as “socialism” and “handouts” by the right, and the explicit and implicit racism in those cries is exactly my problem with Coates’ argument. If it were a universally accepted belief that everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity or income level, deserved equal access to health care or equitable school funding, then why the hell would we have the conflicts we do? A large number of people, whether consciously or no, whether willfully or no, absolutely do NOT believe that, and fundamentally fear loss of privilege and primacy for themselves and people like them if we had social and economic equality. And even if they are relatively powerless themselves, those in power know how to appeal to their sense of entitlement and aggrievement to suggest that they are still more deserving than poor brown people, no matter what.

    As long as there are more of them in positions of power than us, we have to engage with them both on a pragmatic level, but also in challenging the idea that appeasement and not hurting the feelings of the dominant group is the best way to achieve desired ends. The power of calling out racism has already been diluted by semantic games like “the race card” “reverse racism”, and the alleged great pain people experience when their behavior is called racist, which allows them to avoid addressing the substance of the accusations because they have been personally “offended” and “hurt”. We shouldn’t cave in the rest of the way and concede that ground to those who have never wanted parity or equity anyway. I agree that a multifaceted approach is best, and that self-examination and coalition-building with other POC are absolutely necessary. But we have numerous examples throughout this country’s history of attempts to focus on exclusively on the needs and self-governance of black people, and even the appearance of not requiring engagement with the dominant community led to often violent reactions. I don’t see any time in the near future in which failing to address the structural and endemic racism in this culture will benefit black people or anyone else.

    Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 2:03 pm ¶

12. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    I had to go back and re-read, but I did not read the Coates piece the way it has been framed here. And I agree w/atlasien and others that part of the objection (and acceptance) of his viewpoint depends on how you define “anti-racism” and anti-racist work.

    Whether “race-baiters” are really racists (whatever that may mean or however we may measure it)…or if they are not and some anti-racists folks are “misinterpreting” them or are just too sensitive…or if they are just using racism in their target audience to stoke anger and activism–Whatever the case may be, I, too, agree with one of Coates’ statements:

    “Race-baiters have, for the past few decades, repeatedly outfoxed anti-racists.”

    So, whatever your definition of “anti-racist” it is clear that we have not been super effective. And I would *not* necessarily point to the election of Obama as proof that we have been effective. The Obama campaign machine consistently downplayed and avoided race as well as appealed to this idea of “connecting dots” between folks’ common experiences. Its success was due to that and not any explicit anti-racist work, IMO.

    So what is the solution? If abandonning the anti-racism project is not a good solution, then what is? (And if abandonning the anti-racism project *is* a good solution, then what, specifically, is the alternative…?)

    Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 2:13 pm ¶

13. octogalore wrote:

    Interesting post. I wonder, though, if it is making various assumptions.

    For one thing, you state that a liberal economic policy is the best for both the practical interests of black people and for the country. And then you state that “Indeed, the positive relationship between high levels of “racial conservatism” and opposition to the welfare state is one of the closest things to received wisdom that you can find in political science.”

    Accepting as a given that sensible and caring people of both (fiscally) liberal and conservative camps agree that there should be a robust safety net in terms of welfare, unemployment, etc., there is opposition to a left-liberal economic policy that doesn’t stem from racial motivations. Many who believe that a regulated free market system without massive government spending is healthiest for the economy generally also believe that it is healthiest for the lowest income brackets as well. Under the theory that small business sources 2/3 of all new jobs at all levels of the economy, and employment (backed up by a safety net) is perhaps the most direct method of economic support.

    Therefore, there is no necessary direct line relationship between “liberal economic plan” and “anti-racist economic plan.” Nor can it be definitely argued that those who don’t support such a relationship are doing so for racial reasons. Some do, no doubt. But to prove that everyone does is to make unproven economic assertions.

    Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 4:45 pm ¶

14. atlasien wrote:

    “Accepting as a given that sensible and caring people of both (fiscally) liberal and conservative camps agree that there should be a robust safety net in terms of welfare, unemployment, etc., there is opposition to a left-liberal economic policy that doesn’t stem from racial motivations. ”

    That first part is a rather extreme assumption. Right-wing economic theory consistently argues that people are poor because they deserve to be poor, and should be punished for being poor. That’s where the racism is pretty much inescapable, because the class hatred intersects so neatly with racism. Class hatred can exist without race… but race makes it easier to propagandize. Race is like the lighter fluid on the charcoal.

    “Many who believe that a regulated free market system without massive government spending is healthiest for the economy generally also believe that it is healthiest for the lowest income brackets as well.”

    They might believe that, but they’re totally wrong, if their definition of “massive government spending” means “money spent on social services (but not money spent on warfare or corporate handouts)”.

    “Under the theory that small business sources 2/3 of all new jobs at all levels of the economy, and employment (backed up by a safety net) is perhaps the most direct method of economic support.”

    I don’t see what small business has to do with any of this. Right-wing economic theory consistently screws over small businesses in favor of large corporations. For example, anti-anti-trust laws. And money spent on social services usually increases the viability of small businesses. For example, I’m stuck in a corporate job because I’m the main healthcare provider in my family. I can’t take the risk of starting a small home-based business like my husband and mother, because my family would be bankrupted if someone got really sick.

    Posted 15 Oct 2009 at 5:41 pm ¶

15. octogalore wrote:

    “Right-wing economic theory consistently argues that people are poor because they deserve to be poor, and should be punished for being poor.”

    That’s a generalization. There’s no one “right wing economic theory.” If you are familiar with, say, Greg Mankiw, or José Piñera, those are some good examples of folks who are on the conservative or libertarian side of economics, who argue the opposite of what you said, and in fact that it is more collectivist-style economics that bake in current income brackets, keeping the poor from moving up.

    “ if their definition of ‘massive government spending’ means ‘money spent on social services (but not money spent on warfare or corporate handouts)’” – I don’t recall espousing that definition. I’m against corporate welfare/bailouts/crony capitalism and argued above for social services for the needy. Fiscal restraint doesn’t need to mean Gordon Gekko.

    “I don’t see what small business has to do with any of this.”

    Frequently, tax increases hit successful small businesses hardest. Larger businesses are better equipped to pass along tax increases to customers by raising prices and to employees by cutting salaries. Small businesses, when smacked with disincentivizing taxes, will cut jobs.

    But the point isn’t to argue economics here. It’s that, believe them or not, there are viable economic theories supporting the above, that well intentioned professional economics support. There are also counterarguments that well intentioned professional economics support. To argue that the former are necessarily motivated by racial considerations suggests that one has conclusive proof of which of these economists is “right,” which strikes me as above any of our, and their, pay grades.

    Posted 16 Oct 2009 at 12:11 am ¶

16. octogalore wrote:

    Meant “economists” not “economics” in last para, sorry for typo!

    Posted 16 Oct 2009 at 12:12 am ¶

17. atlasien wrote:

    I’ve taken an economics course with a Mankiw textbook, so I am familiar with him. When he actually starts talking about the human element behind the numbers, he’s a typical proponent of class hatred and blame-the-poor (although he’ll put the standard “teach a man to fish” spin on it).

    Quote approvingly by Mankiw on his blog:
    “Poverty comes not from any structural failure of society but from dysfunctional behaviors. Edwards’s poverty shtick is a crock.”

    The poor are painted either as moral failures, or noble dupes that are manipulated by leftists. This mainstream economic view has absolutely no real interest in reducing class disparities… class disparities are too useful. Unless an economist actually calls out this frame for what it is and takes a stand against it, I have no respect for them.

    Small businesses don’t cut jobs not because of higher taxes. They cut jobs because of lower profits. If the higher taxes translate into benefits, such as a healthcare programs, that means they don’t have to pay as much for healthcare for their employees, and that leads to higher profits and the potential for expansion.

    I don’t believe those theories are viable. They’re popular, but they’re not viable for the long-term future of the planet. They all involve class hatred at an integral level, and that class hatred is interwoven with racism. It’s not a personal issue as much as it is an institutional one. If the individual economist doesn’t call it out, then they’re complicit in it.

    Posted 16 Oct 2009 at 10:34 am ¶

18. octogalore wrote:

    Mankiw didn’t say anything approving about the quote, and his only comment says the quote misses an important point. He’s also featured Krugman quotes that he clearly disagrees with, but he likes to have quotes up of well known economists to start discussions. I haven’t had a class with Mankiw (though I have with Krugman), but I’d be willing to bet that the way he guided the class on that quote wasn’t in wholehearted endorsement of the quote itself.

    I’m in a small business that has cut jobs because of higher taxes, and will again. Higher taxes are typically a bigger loss than a healthcare program (even if it were free, which it isn’t) is a gain. A 5% increase in taxes for a small business (the kind big enough to hire and fire significant number) is often a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars or sometimes much more. I’m part of a consortium of small business leaders and the large majority (including a large number of POC) do believe this theory is “viable.” Of course you’re free to disagree, but you cannot say with authority that those who disagree with you on the economic point are doing so for class/race hatred reasons.

    Posted 16 Oct 2009 at 5:43 pm ¶