Has Racism Changed Over The Years?
85
Good Day dingdong!
Thank you for this question: Has racism changed over the years? This is a very broad question taken at face value; so why don't we confine our very brief inquiry to the United States of America.
Let's start by making sure we're on the same page about what racism is, with a formal definition of racism. Racism is a coercive expression of a power relationship of dominant social group(s) toward other social group(s), resulting in the formalized legal, social, economic, and political discrimination of the latter by the former. Also, racism, by definition, can only exist in the context of a formally free society!
Therefore we are not talking about the total sweep of American history. We are not talking about the period of plantation slavery of Africans. Why? Because in the period of the seventeenth century to 1865, America made no pretense of being a universally free society. The enslavement of Africans and "their increase" was not a matter of "racism," but simply the order of things.
It was only after the end of the Civil War and the Reconstruction, did the idea of "liberty and justice for all," in any way, make an embryonic beginning to be universalized formally. It is the difference between the actual treatment of Africans and other non-White Anglo-Saxon-Protestant groups and formal declarations of universal liberty, that is the space in which we identify racism.
Let's define the period further. Let's say we're talking about the period from 1965 to the present 2010. I pick 1965 because it was at that time that the Votings Rights Act and Civil Rights Bill were passed. The fomalized, official universalization of "libery and justice for all" had reached its peak. The early sixties were the tail end of the "Jim Crow" era in the southern United States. And it was in this period when the official forces of racial polarization made a "last stand," as it were, in the person of a southern state governor called George Wallace, who stood on the steps of a university (refusing to allow it to become integrated) and declared: "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"
Its hard to imagine any politician, anywhere in the country being so direct and blatant today. Though, a few years back former Republican senator Trent Lott got into a bit of hot water when he caught on film speaking at the birthday party of the late senator Jesse Helms (who was at least 100 years old!). Mr. Lott said something to the effect that if Mr. Helms had won his bid for the presidency (Helms had run for president in the 1930s or 1940s, something like that), we "wouldn't have all these problems...."
You can Google these people if you don't know who they are. Who was Jesse Helms? We don't have to go into it here. Let's just say he was a senator from a southern state, and add -- with tongue firmly planted in cheek -- that he was no progressive.
Various groups pointed to this to make suggestions against Trent Lott that he was somehow being racist. I personally think this was unfair. I think Mr. Lott was merely flattering an old man on his birthday, who probably didn't even know what planet he was on (did I mention Helms was at least 100 years old?!)
The question
The question is: Has racism in America changed between 1965 and today, 2010?
Discussion
We have a partial answer already. No politician today would dare express his racism so brazenly as George Wallace. We can all agree that the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s had a civilizing effect on the country -- such that in 2008 the two leading contenders for the presidency of the United States of America, were a black man and a woman; and that we could elect a black man to the highest office of the land.
I think we can all agree that life is better for all Americans today than it was, especially for minorities, than it was in the sixties and seventies, on a personal, individual level.
But...
... your question, dingdong, was about racism in particular. Social justice activists specializing in antiracism work will tell you that 'institutional racism' has replaced and picked up from where offically sanctioned discrimination left off. This means that various political, social, legal, and economic organizations unofficially but concretely continue the same patterns of discrimination against certain social groups, well after the official, state-sanctioned practices of such discrimination have been formally renounced.
A good example of this was the case of Pigford Vs. Glickman. This was a case in which eighty thousand black farmers filed a class action suit against the United States Department of Agriculture. Their claim is that black farmers have been systemically discriminated against for generations, unfairly and arbitrarily being excluded from loans, subsidies, and price supports that were given to white farmers. It was a matter of economic justice.
The government settled the case in 1999 for 1.2 billion dollars. The government wasn't going to throw in the towel like that if they didn't think the black farmers had a case. To date, the money has not been paid out yet.
Cultural racism has changed between 1965 and today. As we said, it was in the early sixties that George Wallace made his infamous rant about segregation. I would imagine that in the early sixties it still would have been acceptable among "polite society" to call a black man an ape to his face.
Not so today. However...
More than a year ago there was a story about a two hundred pound chimpanzee that had escaped from the apartment of someone who had apparently been keeping the animal as a pet -- somewhere in the northeast United States. The beast had to be put down by the gunfire of police, as I recall.
Now, this was at the same time as President Obama was trying to get the 'stimulus' bill passed in Congress.
A cartoon was published in the New York Post which combined both stories. We saw two uniformed police officers, one with his arms extended, his gun smoking, having shot a chimpanzee to death. There was a caption that read something to the effect of: "I guess they'll have to find someone else to pass the stimulus bill."
What more is there to say about that?
Take care.
CommentsLoading...
Good Day Brenda Durham!
Thank you for being the first to comment on my latest unworthy hub!! I remember you from the forums and I always appreciate your strong convictions communicated with a personality, that is palpable even across the time and space of the World Wide Web, in its powerful presence.
I'm almost moved to shudder under the awesome gaze which is the Eye of Judgment that is your avatar. Kidding. :-)
But tell me: you use the word 'forced desegregation.' What do you mean by that? Does this mean that there are people in America who would remain "segregated" if given a choice? If so, do you think their position is a good one?
Also, does not the term and concept of "segregation" itself imply that some kind of "force" is at work, in the first place, keeping people apart?
If so, then isn't this 'forced desegregation' you speak of, commanded by the offices of Obama and Attorney General Holder -- not so much the exploitative action of "big government" on innocent people who just want to live their lives in peace; but rather a competition of "forces?"
To answer your question, I think it's an activist agenda.
And yes, I DO think there are people in America who would remain segregated TO AN EXTENT, and yes that's a good thing. And what I mean by that is this------there are many blacks as well as whites who LIKE to live within their own "culture" or "habits" in general. That's NOT to say that they wouldn't or couldn't or don't accept friendship with a person of the opposite race if and when the occasion comes up!
But Mr. Holder said, for instance, that Sundays or the weekends were still "segregated" days! That's not true! At least from my experience! Because whites are free to visit black churches and vice-versa! But I sure as shootin' would NOT want to be FORCED or coaxed via political correctness to visit, say, Reverend Wright's church or even ANY church whether it was a good one or bad one.
What would Mr. Holder have everyone do? Go to a church or gathering they weren't even interested in? Or invite someone to a cookout or barbeque JUST BECAUSE they're of a different race? That's ridiculous! If I happen to have a friend who's black, then they're my friend because we like each other, not because they're a "token" black or I'm a "token" white friend.
And for instance, I don't like rap music nor even the way many blacks sing Gospel music. There's nothing wrong with what they do! And not all of them sing a specific "type" either! But neither is there anything wrong with me having a preference for a specific style of anything! Preferences aren't always racist nor wrong; they're just preferences!
And I will add that I think groups like the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus are racist and should be dismantled now in this age of equality. They may have begun in good faith and for a great cause, but they're now promoting "advancement" of....what?......a specific group of people who have ALREADY reached the stage of equality (if not even above that plateau). "Advancement" these days has become a new term for reverse-racism, and it's being accepted even though people on both sides of the issue are aware of that fact. Why? Because we're under insinuations and a sense of misplaced guilt, perpetuated by the racist agendas like Obama's mindset.
Hello again Brenda Durham! :-)
You honor me by paying a return visit! I want to use this space to make sure I understand your position. You know I took notes as I was reading your gratifyingly lengthy and passionate, as well as surprisingly prompt response to my questions!
1) You believe there are some people in America who would remain segregated by choice, to an extent.
2) You believe this is a good thing because many blacks and whites choose to live within their own culture. You are saying people are most comfortable being in a community they understand, namely, their own. It is a sociological case you're making here.
3) You certainly do not mean to say that all blacks and all whites would choose to remain walled up, exclusively in their own tight circles. They would certainly accept the friendship of groups outside their race whenever the opportunity comes up.
4) Your problem with Attorney General Eric Holder is this: he is on record as having said that despite all the progress on race this country has undoubtedly made, say over the last thirty-five years, he said something to the effect that "Sundays remain segregated days among the races," something like that.
5) You say that the races are certainly not segregated because it is your experience, Brenda Durham, that blacks and whites are equally free each others churches, "black churches and vice-versa!"
6) You certainly would not want to be "forced" to attend a certain kind of church against your will. Reverend Wright's church is especially anathema to you. I gather you believe he is a racist.
7) You found Mr. Holder's remark to be a coercive attempt at 'forced desegregation.' Indeed, "[w]hat would Mr. Holder have everyone do? Go to a church or gathering they weren't even interested in? Or invite someone to a cookout or barbeque JUST BECAUSE they're of a different race?"
8) You believe that organizations like the NAACP and the Black Congressional Caucus, as well as the Hispanic Caucus are racist and should be dismantled in the name of equality.
9) You believe that minorities receive preferential treatment due to "a sense of misplaced guilt, perpetuated by the racist agendas like Obama's mindset."
Do I have that right? Please correct me where I'm wrong. Make any corrections, additions, or modifications you like. I want to make sure I understand you very clearly before I proceed.
I will not offer my remarks before I get the go ahead from you.
.......
Yes, you have it right.
I believe those things are true in each person, black or white. It's not prejudice to simply dislike specific ways or cultures; and it isn't prejudice to even dislike any particular person, but it is wrong to dislike someone simply because of their color, or to discriminate either personally or job-wise simply because of color.
P.S. The "eye" avatar is not meant to be an eye of judgement; it's an eye that's always looking to the Cross of Christ (even though I think the actual "crosses" in there are telephone poles! ha). It caught my attention because it reminds me of the the three Crosses at Jesus's crucifixion.
Good Day Brenda Durham
Welcome back and thank you! I want to tell you that I look forward to a stimulating, fair and free exchange of ideas and perspectives. I have noted and stand corrected as to the provenance of your avatar.
Well, since you have approved my understanding of your position, we can begin.
I. I asked you some questions about your term 'forced desegregation.'
A. What do you mean by the term 'forced desegregation?'
1) I asked if you thought desegregation was being forced, doesn't this mean that segregation is occurring; if this is so, doesn't this mean that this segregation (separation of groups due to some legal, political, social, cultural sanction of some kind) is occurring and is maintained by some kind of force?
B)* To my general question about what you mean by the term 'forced desegregation,' you gave by way of an answer, a reference to a statement made by the Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder that went something like this: 'Sundays remain segregated among the races in America.'
* But I don't understand. Where is the "force?" Surely the Obama administration hasn't offered legislation to Congress, that would make cross-cultural church attendance compulsory? What is Eric Holder or the Obama administration trying to do, in terms of policy action, that would bring about this 'forced desegregation?'
@ You never answered this question: If you believe someone is trying to forcefully bring about 'desegregation,' what about segregation itself; is segregation itself not created and maintained by "force" of one kind or another (social, political, legal, cultural, economic)? If this is so, is it wrong to use "force," again of one kind of another -- should "force" have been spared to uphold the Supreme Court Brown vs. Board of Education decision, which struck down 'separate but equal,' and so forth?
Note: school is something that affects people's ability to earn a livelihood. This is not the case with church -- again, is anybody proposing 'busing' people to cross-cultural churches? (Is 'segregation' the word you want to use?)
II. On 'forced desegregation.'
A) I asked you if you thought desegregation was being 'forced' on people, does that mean that there are people in America who would remain segregated if they could; and I wanted to know if you, Brenda Durham, thought that was a good thing.
1)* Your answer to this, Brenda Durham, was that you believe this is a good thing because people generally want to live in communities they can relate to socially, that they have things in common with. They prefer to be where they are most comfortable.
I would not attempt to contradict you on this generality. But its interesting to note that, during the Jim Crow era in the United States, for example, the various state legislatures passed various segregationary laws about public spaces, as you know.
But they also took the trouble, interestingly, to enact various miscegenation laws. These were laws that specifically prohibited blacks and whites from dating, and certainly cohabitating. Harsh penalties were due to violators.
So, it seems that these southern states weren't content to leave the matter to human nature, or the 'free market.' These laws are indicative of the fact that they feared that human beings, ordinary people, left to themselves, would cross racial barriers to socialize with one another, even fall in love, have sex, and bring children into the world. Interesting.
Also, it is easy to find hosts of dating services, today, that specifically catering to people who wish to date outside of their ethnic cultural group.
Still, I'm not trying to contradict your general assertion about what people generally prefer. This may or may not be true, I don't know. Anyway, it's just little things like this that challenge, if ever so slightly, the dominant paradigm.
Let me close with this. You want to disinguish between racism, which is about the expression of a power relationship, and prejudice or bigotry -- social justice activist who specialize in this work will tell you there is a huge difference. Racism is what my hub is all about after all, not prejudice or bigotry.
Why don't I kick it back to you, Brenda Durham, with that?
Racism hasn’t changed as evil is what evil is but the attitudes of some Americans have. They I believe no longer accept the lies they’ve been told like Blacks are inferior to other races, Black crawled down trees and so they have a tail like a monkey. Blacks aren’t forced to sit at the back of the bus anymore, Blacks can be served now at lunch counters, accommodations for Blacks at hotels can now be honored and well you know a lot of human rights issues that others took for granted where Blacks had to fight for.
Racism has change as I believe more people have a genuine concerned that we are brothers and sisters so when you attack my brother or my sister you’re attacking me. We understand better today that the truth is more preferable then the lies from those who would separate us. People attitudes have changed but racism is still the same from it’s day of conception.
Good Day SpanStar
Thank you for taking the trouble to comment on my unworthy scribblings today. Yes, racism existed in the past and it still exists today. However, it is also fair to say that all of us have a better life today -- and I do mean all of us, not just "minorities" -- because of the civilizing effects of the social justice struggles of the 1960s and 1970s.
This hub was the result of a question I saw in the Q&A: Has racism changed over the years? I handled the question, as best I could, on the technical level at which I believe the inquiry was made: Has and how has the expression of racism changed in America? My analysis was/is that the expression of racism had altered from 1965 to today.
You know, there's a very good resource in the person of Tim Wise (BA political science Tulane University). You can Google him. He's an antiracism social justice activist who, in 2008, I believe wrote a book called "Between Barack and a Hard Place."
His thesis is basically that, far from black people suddenly having it "made in the shade," as it were with the election of America's first black president; racism has morphed from (to use computer lingo) the 1.0 version (the old fashioned, we know it when we see it kind) to racism 2.0.
Racism 2.0 is a racism in which the dominant culture still holds racist attitudes toward blacks and all the rest of it, but will carve out spaces of exception for blacks who can somehow make the dominant culture feel good about themselves.
Obama made a famous speech in 2004, I believe it was when he said something to the effect of: "We're not black America, or white America, blue state America, red state America, etc., etc., but the United States of America." And so on and so forth. You know, the guy's no Louis Farrakhan.
Listen, thanks for stopping by and taking the time to post.
Obama's statement was a devious one. His racist actions before, during, and after that statement don't match that ever-so-eloquent statement of his. Including the reference to politics (red and blue States).
I may come back later and try to reply to your questions, wingedcentaur....
I look forward to it, Brenda Durham. I look forward to it!
Racism in America exists,1.0 or 2.0 it is still racism,All you have to do is watch Fox news if you want proof.Their entire newscast is designed to promote fear and hate between Blacks and Whites,and Fox is doing a very good job at it.That is the way it is,racism is going to be here for a long time.Thats the Truth.
Good Day bill yon
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my unworthy scribblings today. And I see you have done me the honor of joining my "fan club," if you will. I hope I will not disappoint.
I wrote this hub in response to a question in the Q&A forum, as I mentioned. I tried to handle on the technical level on which it was asked. The hubber called dingdong wanted to know if racism (its expression) has changed over the years. My view was that it had. But, of course, you know that as shown by your use of the terms 1.0 and 2.0.
I borrowed that from antiracism activist Tim Wise. You can see videos of him speaking all over the Internet. He's a dynamic speaker. Well, shortly after the election of Obama, he wrote the book called "Between Barack and a Hard Place." This book was about what he sees as the morphing of the expression of racism from its crude, nasty, brutal we-know-it-when-we-see-it variety and the more subtle version of it that comes with the election of the first African-American as President of the United States.
To many people want to say we're a "post-racial" society now, and so forth. But you understand perfectly well. I can see that. Listen, thank you so much for reading and commenting, giving this old hub a boost; and thank you for "fanning" me.
Take care.
Interesting Hub!
We have made great strides, but it seems like a two steps forward 3 steps back issue.
Thank you for visiting, Justsilvie! I agree with what you say. Anti-racism activist Tim Wise called the election of President Obama, the inauguration of what he calls "Racism 2.0," to plug into the computer lingo. He refers to what he calls the "shape-shifting" of racism. The premise is that the dominant culture, WASPs-types will carve out exceptions for those particular black people who make them feel "comfortable" with themselves, who come off like the "Huxtables." Remember that Bill Cosby show?
Anyway, this still implies that a lot of white people still have problems with a lot of black people.
And so on and so forth..... blah, blah, blah....
Listen, thanks again for the read.
Take it easy.
Racism 2.0 as you call it is a cast system based on club membership and legal discrimination clauses. It is the ability to discriminated against anyone regardless of who you our and claim to discriminate against no one. If it is legal to rob you as an investor then it is not robbery. If you our a member of the club you get to be the robber. If you got robbed not even 1.2 million women can convince the Supreme Court that you our being discriminated against. You do not have enough money to convince the club membership that you can buy their voice.
Good Day SanXuary! Cool name, by the way.
Thank you for your contribution. The term Racism 2.0 is a term used by anti-racism activist, Tim Wise. He features that term in his book, "Between Barack and A Hard Place," I believe. He is using the term, a bit tonguein-cheek,tapping into computer language.
As you know, I wrote this hub in response to a question from the hubber known as dingdong: "Has Racism changed over the years?"
Looking at the years from 1965 to today, my answer was yes, the social expression of racism had changed in the United States, even if the political and economic structures of earlier periods of EXCLUSION of African-Americans and Hispanics remain, pretty much intact but altered slightly.
Social justice activists define "RACISM" like this: it is the ability of a dominant social group to discriminate against one or more other social groups, on the basis of "race," in such a way that has material political and even more importantly economically bad consequences for the targeted group(s).
In terms of overt, public social behavior certain things are not supposedly acceptable today that were acceptable in 1965 -- and that is something. Nobody could get away with doing a George Wallace standing on the state house steps saying "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever!"
Listen, SanXuary, thanks so much for the read.
Take it easy.
Interesting Hub!!! Not too long ago, I was studying Anthropology, and was asked a question on a test I was taking. The question asked, "Do you believe in race?" The first thing I thought was, well, is this a trick question? After all, many people will have their own opinions about this.
However, I answered plain and square. The answers were multiple choice, and basically said yes, no, maybe, or I don't know. As a whole, I do not believe in race. From the beginning, whether or not you are Christian, Atheist, or other wise, we all came from the same place. Well...that is what I believe. Therefore, no, I do not believe in race.
I would elaborate, but time is crunching, and I need to get ready.
See you later!!!
Hi, dignifiedlove!
Thank you for honoring me by commenting upon my unworthy hub.
As a understand it, 'race' is NOT a genetic/biological reality. People have different complexions (amounts of melanin), eye and hair color because of adapative physiological responses to different environmental conditions. I hear its rather hot and sunny in the southern hemisphere -- thus darker skin tones, hair and eye color, as a protection against the sun, which shines brighter and hotter down there. The sun is not so much of a factor in the northern, colder regiouns of the Earth -- thus the lighter skin tones and hair and eye color.
And so on and so forth.
'Race,' is, of course, a cultural and social construct, and that is the basis upon which we proceed with an analysis of social problems (to the extent to which 'race' are factors in different social problems).
Actually, 'race' comes up in surprising ways. For example, why don't we, in the United States of America, supposedly the richest, most powerful country on Earth, and in world history, have universal, free health care for all of its citizens --- something that is elemental in every other advanced capitalist society?
It turns out that Presidents since Harry Truman (1946) have been pushing the matter, but have been unable to get serious reform through Congress? What stopped Truman's efforts in the 1940s?
Answer: A powerful coalition of southern DEMOCRATS and their constituents, who were afraid that universal health care would lead to INTEGRATED hospitals!
That legacy pursues us to this day! And that is why, contrary to popular belief, the past is not just the past. That is why it is important to know history.
Listen, thank you so much for reading and leaving great feedback, dignifiedlove!
Take it easy.
Brenda Durham Level 5 Commenter 22 months ago
Sure it's changed.
It's now politically correct to engage in reverse-racism and to criminalize those who speak against it. Mr. Obama leads the way in that activism.
And Atty. Gen. Eric Holder. He wants to promote forced desegregation.
So, yeah, it has changed from one atrocity to another, and this time it's being done with a huge vengeance against people who had nothing to do with the first atrocity.
Bush was portrayed in an unfair and insulting light in many cartoons and etc.,
so why do people whine about the kinds of cartoons insulting Obama that you mentioned?
I would think it could be taken as an insult to atheists and Darwinists and others too. Being "chimpanzee-like" would point toward being "Neanderthalish", seems to me, not toward the black race. Unless of course YOU have the picture in your mind of some comparison of blacks to apes!