Poverty Wages , "progressives", and racism

[maryf]

I thought I'd post this article to open a discussion and to get some folks to really think about how social injustice is the major problem in the country today and is related to all other issues...Removing some paragraphs on edit to encourage all to read the article in its entirety:

The article uses a critique of a recently republished book as a springboard for the discussion:

"For the second time since its initial publication in 1991, historian David Roediger has published a new edition of The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. This newest edition includes both a new preface by the author and an introduction by former Black Panther and current Yale law professor, Kathleen Cleaver. While the political concept of "white skin privilege" is not Roediger's, his book was instrumental in its attempt to establish a theoretical foundation for what has now morphed into "whiteness studies.""

more:

http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor05172008.html

[ananda]

1. Thoughts.

This statement really disturbs me.

"It is widely accepted today by radicals, liberals, and left-wing academics that not only do white workers materially benefit from racism, but all whites are united in defense of "whiteness." "

Is that really true?

OK, I can see how many whites would believe that white workers materially benefit from racism, but I wonder what it actually means to say that all whites are united in defense of "whiteness." What exactly does that mean? Is that a veiled way of saying that every white person is a white supremacist?

Yes, I can see a certain sense of superiority and entitlement even in the most radical or evolved whites. That is a mindset that is ingrained from infancy, that the world is ours, that we have the right to pursue or own anything, to have whatever we want, to outdo the last person or event. Just today I read how a student at a troubled, endangered school wanted to make next year's prom bigger and better. There is that, and of course the meme of home and car ownership, of speaking your mind and just taking up a lot of space in general, of taking things and turning them out for profit or pleasure.

However, I think it's important to understand that white allies to black people do not have to be perfect or completely evolved. If that were the criteria, there wouldn't be much hope for any of us.
What's important is that we realize that we have some very annoying and difficult habits of thought and speech that need challenging, but that we are willing to listen and try to be the best allies we can be.

Sue

[maryf]

2. white allies to black people do not have to be perfect

Very true, and as many socialists are white and battling racism, I don't believe "all" is necessarily the word that should have been used, I personally avoid absolutes, the discussion has its merits regardless... thanks for commenting!

[El Pinko]

3. It's hard to for me to see how whites on the lower end of the economic spectrum benefit from racism

But it's very, very easy to see how the folks at the upper end of the spectrum benefit from class divisions, from keeping poor whites and poor blacks suspicious of each other and divided, so that the lower half never rises in unison and forcefully demand that all working Americans be allowed to share in the nation's wealth.

When I read articles like this that really say very little, it becomes clear that I'm reading the thoughts of a person who really has no skin in the game - a person who is already "set" one way or another, is probably white, and thinks that just because he had it easy, all whites must.

Sure there is racism - rampant racism. And there are probably some poor whites benefitting from it. But "benefits" like not being pulled over by a cop, or getting that custodian job over the black applicant are too small and infrequent to even be compared to the immense benefits that come from being born wealthy.

Articles like this make me livid because by insisting that all whites enjoy this mysterious "white privilege", they instantly alienate many of the millions of whites who struggle every day just to keep a roof over their head. It's a slap in the face, and it's not constructive. You want to reach people, then use empathy - emphasize the obstacles and disadvantages non-whites have to deal with. Don't insult people who are totally SCREWED by this country that they are "privileged".


Personally, I have a dream of a day when all people of all colors in this country who make less than $30K per year will take to the streets and demand that they get their fair share of the nation's wealth.

[maryf]

5. Good Dream

"Personally, I have a dream of a day when all people of all colors in this country who make less than $30K per year will take to the streets and demand that they get their fair share of the nation's wealth." I totally agree and actually think the wages should be higher...I make more than that and would take to the streets...and think all should...

The article is a bit of a criticism of the book mentioned, the author writes herself (I hope you read the whole thing and not just the paragraphs I posted, I may remove them again):

"Unity, then as today, must always be fought for, argued for, and organized.

This possibility revealed itself almost immediately after Reconstruction, when Black and white workers collaborated on waterfronts, in lumber mills, and in coal mines across the South in ways that were unfathomable before the war. The Populist movement in the 1890s also highlighted the possibility of a united struggle, but also highlighted the weakness of political movements that did not fully grasp the need to combat racism."

You say "Sure there is racism - rampant racism. And there are probably some poor whites benefitting from it. But "benefits" like not being pulled over by a cop, or getting that custodian job over the black applicant are too small and infrequent to even be compared to the immense benefits that come from being born wealthy." not sure I agree with this, and it points to the divide and conquer attitude which the writer refers to as the new progressive attitude which puts racism on the back burner...

BTW The writer of the article is not white, I would bet, as the article was picked up by the Black Agenda Report this week, the historian discussed may well be...

[Unvanguard]

9. The author of the piece would agree with you.

The point being made is that a Marxism that relegates racism to a secondary role, an "evil" but not one that need be fundamental to the liberation struggle, is legitimate--against claims by the author of the book being reviewed that white privilege is a powerful enough force that simply attributing it to the nature of capitalism is simplistic and counter-productive.

I agree with the book. It's never seemed particularly plausible to me that white supremacy is fundamentally a consequence of capitalist rule--at least its maintenance, anyway (its origin was directly tied to the imperialism of early capitalism). The simple dismissal the article makes of the ample evidence in this case--the historical record of white workers not being the greatest champions of black equality--is indicative of a failure to recognize a fact that Marxism recognizes quite well elsewhere: the oppressed must liberate themselves.

[El Pinko]

17. I agree with the critique much more than (what I know of) the book.

I wrote that post when I was very sleepy and really didn't get the gist of the piece very well.

I read it again refreshed and re-evaluated it elsewhere in the thread.

[wellst0nev0ter]

15. Here's Two Ways Poor Whites Benefit From Racism

First, whites that occupy the lowest quintile in the income scale has more than seven times the net wealth ($17,066) as blacks that occupy the same quintile ($2,400), and they have 74 times the liquid assets ($7,400 vs $100).

Second, three quarters of poor whites live in middle class neighborhoods while three-quarters of poor blacks live in poor neighborhoods.

Of course, you can point out any number of poor whites whose economic situation is not different from the poorest of blacks, but trust me, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

[El Pinko]

18. None of us are statistics or quintiles....

....and there are MILLIONS of those exceptions that prove the rule out there.

[wellst0nev0ter]

21. Well, The Fact Is

There are more poor blacks living in poor neighborhoods than poor whites living in poor neighborhoods, despite blacks being the "minority". So for all intents and purposes, it is certainly different to be black and poor in this country than to be white and poor.

[El Pinko]

22. It's also different to be you than it is to be me.

Statistics may amount to a lot to people in the enviable position of being employed to pore over and analyze them, but they are ultimately meaningless to the people they purport to represent.

IE tell a hungry white kid in a trailer in Appalachia or a working-class white teen getting the crap beat out of him in the inner-city public school where he's the minority that he's "privileged", and you'll get a well-deserved "fuck you".

It's funny how in the world of liberalism, it's a no-no to make blanket generalizations, except for when it's okay to make blanket generalizations.

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. It's Interesting How You Think Victimization Of Poor Whites Are Mutually Exclusive

from racism against blacks. To use the experiences of poor whites in order to diminish or deny the realities of racism against blacks shows that you care about neither. Do you think that Appalachian kid would like to turn black anytime soon? And not into Bill Cosby or Chris Rock, since anyone would want to turn into a rich entertainer, but turn from an anonymous Appalacian white kid to an anonymous Appalacian black kid?

And for that working-class white kid that gets beaten up by blacks (yes, a common occurance, I know :sarcasm: ) the fact that he has to go to a segregated all-black urban high school in the first place shows how he too is victimized by the history of discrimination in this country. No, it doesn't excuse the fact that he gets beaten up in the first place, but neither does his victimization by blacks excuse racism against blacks and its effects.

It's funny how in the world of illiberalism, white poverty and black violence gets used to justify injustices :eyes:

[El Pinko]

24. I didn't say it was.

Of course I'm not a liberal. Liberalism is a political philosophy of the privileged, by the privileged and for the privileged - e.g. the guilt-ridden bourgeoisie.

I'm a socialist and proud of it.

My point is not that white poor kids suffer more or less than black kids (and yes, poor white kids do get beat up in minority schools. Sorry if that's news to you) or vice-versa. The point is that they are in a world of hurt too.

But racial equality, gender equality, gay rights, etc. these issues are addressed - often, in fact they are a part of the democratic platform. Class equality? Pshaw! We all know that people who "work with their hands" deserve to live in squalor. We've got to have winners and losers, and as once as an equal percentage of blacks live in squalor as whites and other minorities, everything will be just and good! mega-:sarcasm:

We have one party that actively works to make the poor poorer, and one party that simply ignores them and occasionally ups the minimum wage (ALWAYS less than inflation).


Never mind that efforts to address class, pay living wages and bring about economic justice for all people would disproportionately benefit minorities.

No, we have to make it all about race, all the time, after all, and make sure to regularly remind the poor whites how "privileged" they are, after all, if we good toffee-nosed latte-liberals and rich-fuck conservatives don't keep the poor whites and poor blacks distrustful of each other, they might get together and come and take some of OUR STUFF.

[Unvanguard]

25. Since when does racial equality get any more attention

than economic equality?

Real, concrete racial equality--like ending the large disparities in income, and even larger disparities in wealth, between whites and blacks and Latinos, or ensuring that minority communities get equal access to public services--is simply not on the agenda. Not in any substantive way, anyway.

But more importantly, this argument over "who has it worse" misses the point: racial inequality and class inequality are perversely intertwined (see welfare "reform"). To pretend we can avoid talking about and dealing with one by focusing on the other is dangerous and disingenuous.

[wellst0nev0ter]

29. Once Again, You Are Arguing As If One Should Be Exclusive Of The Other

I have a lot of scornful things to say about pig-headed, holier-than-thou socialists who refuse to live in the real world, but that's another discussion for another day.

Sorry to break this to you, but erasing class differences does not necessarily erase race differences - period. As you yourself admitted, poor blacks and poor whites, who supposedly occupy the same economic class, are still divided by race as evidenced by your hypothetical white kid in an all-black school. Living wage? How is that supposed to happen if certain people do not get the job in the first place? You say poor whites aren't that priviledged, you haven't really answered how many of them would like to turn into black versions of themselves overnight. Don't bother because I think we both know the answer to that question.

The irony is that I actually agree with most of those ideals for economic justice, but you know (or should know) full well that the biggest stumbling block to that is the fact certain people don't want to help out "those people" who are lazy and are otherwise undeserving of their support.

But of course, people must support your agenda to the exclusion of every other issue. That's the only way we can move forward, right?

[Unvanguard]

31. For what it's worth, plenty of socialists advocate frameworks that extend beyond class.

Neither El Pinko nor the article's author speak for all of us.

[Oak2004]

30. As a lower-end white I have no problem understanding how:

Unemployment is up. But there's one job opening, as a MallWart greeter. It's me against a black person. Guess who usually gets hired?

I'm injured and need to go on disability. The worker that day has X number of applicants, and feels obligated to deny Y% of applicants (thanks to the arm-twisting of superiors). I and a few others are white, some others are black. Guess who's less likely to be given an obligatory denial.

I get drunk and get in an altercation with a neighbor. The neighbor is black. The police are called. Guess who the police give the benefit of the doubt?

It goes on and on. Class is a very big issue, yes, and challenging class is going to yield deeper, more profound changes overall. But it's impossible to forget that white skin at every socioeconomic level gives its bearer an unfair advantage over others.

[bobbolink]

4. the point that I'm getting from this, and to me its a very important point, is to

recognize that we, as "progressives", often think that we have the answers, and try to then impose those answers on others.

What we are needing, I strongly believe, is more humility, and, as you say so well, the ability and *willingness* to LISTEN, and take the lead from those who we are purporting to "help".

I see this a lot... people who consider themselves so "aware", but can't make the effort to really listen and understand what is being said to them.

[maryf]

6. case in point

Is this article, which I may well remove the first paragraphs to force folks to read it. I also think folks start reading the posts without reading the OP and the included article in its entirety, which completely gives a false or at least partial impression of what the thread is about, thanks for replying!

[El Pinko]

7. I read the whole article but found it rife with gobbledygook.

Maybe I was just too sleepy when I read it but it seemed like a lot of pseudointellectual sound and fury signifying very little.

I'll have to read it again when I'm alert enough...

[El Pinko]

12. Having reread it now, I'd say the only goddledygook was in the book being critiqued.

The critique itself is on target, IMO.

[Unvanguard]

8. It's a straw man invented by the author

to distort the views of those who point out that class-based movements tend to subordinate and neglect considerations of racial oppression.

Don't take it seriously.

[SpiralHawk]

10. Bingo !

You got it, Unvanguard...

[El Pinko]

11. I don't think it's a straw man at all.

I just reread the critique and the excerpt with a clearer head, and having done so, I have to agree with the critique - at least given the info here - I have not read the book.

But the notion that all whites share in white privilege and are thus somehow united in the defense of "whiteness" is pushed here all the time.

As far as I can see, class has been removed from the table of serious mainstream discourse, whereas race, gender and sexuality are handled ad nauseam.

And I would say that "Race-based movements tend to subordinate and neglect considerations of economic class." is much closer to the truth. Case in point - Barack Obama's anything-but-populist campaign.

Rev. King was on the verge of his campaign against poverty when he was murdered, but since then it seems that poor whites are pretty much excluded from the discussion of how to improve the plight of the disadvantaged.

It's no wonder then that they are such ripe picking for right-wing hatemongers and religious scammers.

[maryf]

13. "Unity, then as today, must always be fought for, argued for, and organized."

In a nutshell is one aspect the battle needs to focus on, and you're point about King's campaign about social/economic injustice being his main focus before he was killed is dead on, thanks! I think poverty is a top priority we need to battle against, as the number of disenfranchised homeless keeps rising...

[Unvanguard]

14. Of course it's a straw man. No one says, or even suggests

that all whites are committed to defending white privilege.

The issue is whether a mostly white movement can be expected to concretely challenge white privilege sufficiently... and the empirical evidence indicates otherwise.

You're actually quite right that pure race-based movements fall into the reverse trap. My point is simply that we have no reason to expect that class-based politics can manage to tackle the problem of racism.

Your mention of Obama's campaign is interesting, since his line on the subject, made quite clear in his speech on Rev. Wright, is merely a more moderate formulation of the classic Marxist position repeated in the article: focus on expanding economic opportunity for all, and the conflicts of race will magically disappear all on their own. (He did mention better enforcement of civil rights laws, if I recall correctly, which is undoubtedly a good thing... but the main direction was populist and opposed to racial politics.)

[El Pinko]

16. Granted, Obama's message has not been centered on race...

...if anything, he's made a point of avoiding it. But that doesn't change the fact that his campaign represents a referendum on race. The results are pretty much foregone now that democrats will elect a black man president. The question of whether the country as a whole will do so is obviously still up in the air.

But I fail to see where his campaign, has been populist. Certainly not left-populist anyway. I think if I was a Wall Street bigwig, I wouldn't have much to fear from an Obama presidency.



"The issue is whether a mostly white movement can be expected to concretely challenge white privilege sufficiently... and the empirical evidence indicates otherwise."


Personally, I'd be quite satisfied with a movement that challenges privilege in general. "White privilege" is something so subtle that it's impossible to sense unless it's taken away, it's difficult to quantify, and more than anything, it's extremely divisive as a topic, because very few working-class whites feel the least bit privileged - they have to struggle just to tread water, and being called 'privileged' by ivory-tower liberals only makes them resent liberals and liberalism even more, IMO.

It certainly pisses me off, because it amounts to attacking poor and vulnerable people for having been born white, instead of those who keep them poor and vulnerable.

Besides, it's not really true, anyway. Not being pulled over or watched like a hawk in a store for the color of your skin is not "privilege", it's the way it's supposed to be. A lack of discrimination or victimization is not "privilege". That doesn't invalidate any of the very real disadvantages minorities have to deal with, but I think there will always be a lot more people on board with erasing minority discrimination/disadvantage than chasing after the phantoms of "white privilege" - the benefits of which seem to elude so many white people.

[Unvanguard]

19. There's the simple fact of scarcity.

And the cultural fact of relative inequality: simply having a higher social status than others can be a kind of privilege.

Social inequality between lower-class blacks and lower class-whites is a simple fact... disparities in education and wealth, for instance, are telling. Historically speaking, when whites and blacks are competing in the same labor market and the competition gets fierce (as with the structural changes to the US economy in the past few decades), blacks lose out... and I see no reason to believe that white workers gained nothing from this fact.

White privilege is real, and it doesn't disappear even at the lower economic levels. You're right, such people may not "feel" privileged (though does any privileged person "feel" privileged?), and indeed, as members of a class that is exploited and marginalized in many other ways, they are not likely to react well to the point that they are privileged in this one... but that does not alter its truth.

Is this a perverse consequence of the logic of white supremacist capitalism? Yes. But it is real. And a political movement genuinely committed to racial equality should not believe that such problems have easy answers in the framework of class-based unity... a unity that tends to obscure race.

[maryf]

27. Well said

and if I may point out for consideration of your statement the article's author's last sentence of her first paragraph (in the pretext before starting the critique)

"Finally, socialist revolution is only possible through the efforts of a multiracial working class whose unity is based on white workers being convinced that they must become the best fighters against racism."

On a different tack, my primary battle still is to relieve poverty in all cases, it being easier to resolve differences between those who are housed and fed vs. otherwise.

[Unvanguard]

28. The trouble with that kind of rhetoric is that it's mere lip service.

The most important lesson Marxism has for those who seek to change things is that politics is not about intricate theories or high-minded ideals: in the real world, such things often have little currency.

How do you build a political movement of white workers that seeks to be "the best fighters against racism"? In no sense does it reflect their material interest, not in any straightforward sense anyway, and in many respects it may contradict it.

True, a unified class movement would naturally erode racism somewhat--there are good pragmatic reasons at times for white workers to ally with black workers--but it would not constitute a movement towards racial equality; it would be, if you will, a racial "truce" that kept things more or less as they are in that respect while focusing on a different issue.

That is precisely why class-based movements are accused of subordinating race: while they may be theoretically anti-racist, and in practice may even be less racist than most of the alternatives, with respect to race they don't actually change very much. And in a country--and a world--where so much inequality is bound up with race, and has been for centuries, that is simply not good enough.

[maryf]

33. Awareness

I am personally working these things out, however, I believe within a unified class struggle, awareness of inequality both racial and gender based (sorry had to consider the latter, although much Marxist dialogue negates it, I am not focused on Marxism here myself (and I am not opening up a new can of worms as my time is limited to responding to it)) and the history of both will need to be continually and responsibly considered. Maybe being rhetorical here, but as I say I'm working it out, and my main focus is economic justice and the disenfranchisement of the homeless, elderly, and extreme poor. Peace, Mary

[Breeze54]

20. Well stated and about time. It is about class and geography, imho.

You hear about fund raising and hand wringing about poor inner city children all the time
while the poor children in rural area's are often ignored. The city people always seem to
be looking for money to build a boys & girls club or a medical clinic in a poor neighborhood
but you don't hear about that in the country or the rural suburbs.You don't hear a lot about
having those kinds of centers in rural area's but those kids need them just as bad. Just a
pattern I've also noticed after living in both types of area's. Interesting.

[bobbolink]

26. "poor whites are pretty much excluded from the discussion "

That's not how I see it from where I am.

FIRST, poor people aren't included in any discussions that I'm aware of.

In the town where I am, there are now plans for building a low-income building for "the working poor" (NOTICE... only for people who are working... those of us who are poor and can't work can live in a tree, I guess---the same for those who are too old, etc. I'm really sick of this segregation of the "worthy" and the "unworthy poor"!)

Not only are poor people of ANY race or ethnic group NOT included in the planning and discussion, but they plan to have overseers... I mean "oversight", that same old authoritarian crap of parental control of people who only need a good place to live.

I'm so sick of all this authoritarian crap it's all I can do to keep from shrieking all the time!!

:nuke:

[maryf]

34. Thanks!

My initial concern in opening this discussion was to consider the economic injustice and lack of power of the extreme poor regardless of race. Your point about "the working poor" being considered for housing and others being left out is truly egregious, circumstances of employment should not be a primary consideration, need should be first. Good luck Bobbie, hope you can get your voice heard there, maybe a letter to the editor from outside would help, hmmmm...:hi:

[bobbolink]

35. Jim Wallis has a whole chapter in one of his books titled "Listen To Those Closest To The Problem"

In other words, LISTEN to poor people, instead of paternalistically ordering us around.

What a concept, eh?

And pitting one group of poor people against another group is despicable!

Yes, I think a letter to the editor "from outside" would help.

We poor folk aren't heard, and what we need is supporters!

Thanks!

:loveya:

[NashVegas]

32. delete

don't wanna get into it.