Sunday, September 25, 2016

A Question about Race and Politics

The essay below –which wasn’t meant to be an essay –was in response to some specific questions from a (very conservative) student, as well as a youtube video of conservative author Dinesh D’Souza. I answered the questions in writing, rather than in class, because the class was about U.S. history up to 1877, and most of my answer involves post-1877. Spending an hour of class time doing this would eat up time needed to cover the material of that class.

Here are the questions I received:

“It is fascinating to learn about the history of slavery and racism in the United States, especially given the current times. I saw this video circulation on the internet/social media and wanted to get your opinion. Republicans are consistently painted as the racists in the modern day while we have been learning that it was the democrats who passed Black Codes and died to protect slavery. Where should the modern intellectual man and mind stand on party lines in respect to supposed racism in modern 2 party policy? Should the Republicans really be the ones that are seen as non-promoting of minority issues? Or have we all been misled? These are questions that I have after seeing the attached video and reading the latest article from the Washington Post talking about how 45-65% of modern republicans/Trump supporters do not considered racial issues a priority etc. I would love to get your thoughts.”


 

By the way, here is what I think is a balanced article on, and interview with, D’Souza in Vanity Fair, to get some background on him:  Vanity Fair article  

In the event you are not able, or inclined, to watch the video, I’ll give you a brief recap. D’Souza argues that it is unfair for Republican policy to be construed as racist, as Democrats have always been the party of racism; when a historian in the audience asks him about the Southern Strategy of Nixon, D’Souza claims it was not really a factor, that the mass movement of blacks from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party happened in the 1930s under FDR, because they wanted entitlements, and that this had already happened before the Civil Rights Era. He also claimed that it was only the non-racist white Southerners who left the Democrats to become Republicans after the Civil Rights movement.


At this point I should point out that it is a matter of public record, and common knowledge, that I am the faculty adviser of the College Democrats (for six years now), which makes my political affiliation more public than would normally be true for a college instructor. I would also point out that in six years of student evaluations many students have commented on my fair treatment of the two parties in class.

Here is my response:

I am going to try to address the points you raised, and that Dinesh D’Souza asserted in the youtube video you sent me. It took me awhile because historians don’t give one-paragraph answers; we have to build an argument, and we have to look at context. I wound up spending several hours writing this; that’s not a complaint, I feel it is my job to, well, talk about history. But I do hope, in light of the time and effort, you take the time and effort to read it closely and think about it.

First of all, there is apparently no question with D’Souza (and you) that the Republican and Democratic parties “switched places” on a lot of issues (with D’Souza taking the unconventional stance that this happened exclusively in the 1930s, not the 1960s/70s.) So we can start with that shared assumption. This means, of course, that it is extremely misinformed and disingenuous to make statements (which I’ve seen a lot of conservatives doing lately) like “Why do people say Republicans are racists, when Republicans freed the slaves and Democrats supported slavery and the KKK?” 

Because you are talking about the Democrats and Republicans of the 1860s/1870s. We’ll be spending a lot of time in class discussing the births of both those parties (and Federalists, and Whigs), but for the sake of simplicity, let’s put it this way: the Republicans of that time opposed the spread of slavery (while the radical extremes of the party wanted to end slavery, period), while Democrats (North and South) wanted to preserve it. In other words, Republicans wanted extreme social change, and Democrats wanted things to stay the same. Essentially, Republicans were liberal and Democrats were conservative. So if one insisted on bringing slavery and racism into the discussion, it would be much more accurate to say that in the 19th century conservatives supported slavery and the Ku Klux Klan and liberals opposed both (although the terms liberal and conservative as we use them are mostly a result of 1950s politics).

To give a thorough explanation I am going to have to go into things we will be discussing in class, so you’re getting a free preview.

The early Republicans were ardent believers in “Free Soil and Free Labor.” They believed that when Free Labor exists –instead of Slavery –every working man has an equal chance to pull himself up by his bootstraps and succeed (this is still a basic part of the Republican Party.) They believed that slavery was bad –not just because it was immoral –but because it was detrimental to small farmers and working men. Wages are driven down when it’s possible to just own your labor force. Thus it would be a catastrophe if new states opened up in the West allowed slavery: instead of small, independent farmers getting a break by being able to claim land and start farms –which is eventually what Lincoln guaranteed with the Homestead Act –rich plantation owners would grab up all the land for new plantations, worked by slaves, and working men and small farmers out West would be screwed. The importance of free labor was actually summed up by Lincoln when he said this:

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

SO, during Reconstruction, which was very radical and very liberal, the Republican Party was in favor of the federal government helping newly freed blacks (AND poor whites) get started in their new lives as farmers, and established the Freedmen’s Bureau. Democrats (conservatives) complained about this process, saying that the Republican-dominated federal government was coddling black people, who were too lazy to go out and make it on their own, giving them free stuff while they lived a life of ease, paid for by the taxes of white workers, who were therefore getting the shaft. As evidenced in this Pennsylvania Democratic campaign ad from 1866:


(The President in question is Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, who was very soft on the former Confederate political leaders of the South. Lincoln had chosen a Democrat as running mate to help him get re-elected in 1864.)

But Republicans believed in Free Labor. They believed that, if everyone had a fair shot, anyone could succeed. Therefore, by stepping in and helping freed blacks get a fair shot, Republicans believed that within a few years you would see a lot of successful black entrepeneurs in the South. But that did not happen, for two reasons: groups like the KKK were terrorizing blacks who seemed like they could be successful (and their white Republican, mostly Northern allies), and –number two –these freed slaves had just come out from under centuries of bondage and had no idea how to get started and compete, it would take more than just a few years to undo that.

So as the years went by and blacks in the South weren’t showing the sort of rapid progress Republican leaders had predicted, Republican voters lost patience (and interest) with them, and eventually Reconstruction had little political support among northern Republicans, who turned more of their attention toward business in the mid-1870s. Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes, winner of the closely-contested 1876 election, had campaigned on the promise of ending Reconstruction. This was really the beginning of the shift in the Republican Party, as they were more and more concerned with promoting business interests rather than racial issues.

This resulted in The Gilded Age, the age of the “robber barons,” when vast fortunes were made while workers and farmers felt more and more put-upon. This is why bank robbers like Jesse James or the Dalton Gang were treated as heroes by average Americans in that period –they were sticking it to the man (and why bank robbers, such as Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde, would again be glamorized during the Depression.) This would lead to labor actions and eventually the Populist movement of the 1890s, followed by the Progressive Era (1900-1920). During this period the Democratic Party welcomed immigrants and lobbied very hard for their votes, as well as for that of factory workers.

The Progressive Era –absolutely a reaction against the Gilded Age and its excesses –lasted twenty years and the administrations of three presidents: Teddy Roosevelt (Republican), William Howard Taft (Republican), and Woodrow Wilson (Democrat.) All three were Progressives. Progressivism entailed an activist federal government, willing to step in and regulate businesses and particularly opposed to monopolies. Progressivism also was marked by a heavy reliance on “experts”. Teddy was famous for his business-regulating and trust-busting (trust of course = monopoly). Taft followed his example, busting up some big companies, but Teddy felt Taft was too soft on big business so he came back to run against him in 1912 as a third party candidate (he called his new party the Progressive Party.) Wilson was the Democratic candidate. Socialist candidate Eugene Debs got a respectable percentage of the votes, as well. So there were four candidates in the 1912 election: Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, and Debs. ALL of them were left of center; of the four, Wilson was probably the closest to conservative (maybe tied with Taft). He won, of course- he most assuredly was not looking for the black vote; a Southerner, he was also the most racist of the four.


Wilson pushed through a lot of Progressive legislation. (He can’t take credit for the 16th Amendment enacting the federal income tax, Teddy proposed it first and Taft endorsed it, but all four 1912 candidates were for it.) However, once the U.S. got involved in WWI, the Wilson administration displayed the worst aspects of Progressivism (government activism- or perhaps it could better be called over-reactivism –and an extreme emphasis of the group over the individual.) The federal government’s mass violations of citizens’ basic civil rights –basically for questioning the government in any way during war-time –was on par with the similar excesses of Lincoln during the Civil War and John Adams in 1798. Conscientious objectors from non-mainstream religions like Mennonites and Jehovah’s Witnesses were imprisoned, as were writers, artists, labor organizers, or anyone who criticized the government or questioned U.S. involvement in the war.

This was exacerbated by the Russian Revolution of 1917, in which radical leftists toppled a major European power and created a new –communist –government. The Department of Justice cracked down on labor activists –and immigrants from Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe- in the first Red Scare (young J. Edgar Hoover, future FBI director, came to national prominence at this time.) Even people who were afraid of communism, though, started to question the government’s campaign of mass arrests without specific charges or evidence.

I think it was a combination of the Wilson administration’s overreaches regarding civil rights and the increasing fear of communism (the ultimate and most extreme expression of the left) that led to the Democrats’ shellacking in 1920. Pro-business –and very conservative –Republicans swept into the White House and Congress, and started undoing the regulations of the Progressive Era, particularly where banks and Wall Street were concerned. (Calvin Coolidge: “The business of America is business.”) The 1920s would be one of the most conservative decades of the 20th century. In fact, fear of communism and the left led to the rise of fascists in Italy, Germany, and Japan (fascism = the ultimate and most extreme expression of the right.) That didn’t happen in the U.S… what did happen was a lax oversight of banking and investment that led to a very big bubble-burst in 1929, aka The Great Depression.

1920 Shellacking of Democrats:


Herbert Hoover did not believe in an activist government. He did not believe in government safety net programs. People who were unemployed and starving felt differently. Hoover’s Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon created a huge stink when he echoed the Gilded Age “social Darwinism” language, saying that Americans needed to stop whining and tighten their belts, and stop being so lazy. Besides, he said, depressions were a good way to weed out lazy and incompetent people. This did not go over well with people who were out of work and homeless through no fault of their own.

And here we have FDR sweeping into office. His Democratic Party was not the same one of Wilson –or even of 1920, when FDR had been the VP candidate. He put together a new coalition of voters, which would be the Democratic base for the next 50 years: rural white Southerners, factory workers, farmers, blacks, immigrants, and intellectuals. So to give D’Souza some credit, this was the beginning of a major shift- but again, it did not include Southern blacks so much, as only 5% of eligible black voters were registered to vote in the South (due to a combination of fear and despair of making a difference). FDR also back-pedaled from racial issues most of the time, out of fear of antagonizing white Southern voters. Also- I’m sure you’ve heard people talk about how MLK and Jackie Robinson were Republicans. Well, they came into public prominence well after the Great Depression, didn’t they?

The real changes, where race is concerned, started after FDR, with Truman. He put together a permanent commission on civil rights, and integrated the U.S. military by executive order (because it would never have passed Congress- but as Commander-in-chief it was within his purview.) Southern Democrats were very upset about this. They got even more upset at the Democratic National Convention in 1948- the same month as that executive order –when northern liberals led by Humbert Humphrey of Minnesota not only endorsed Truman and his actions, they called for several civil rights concerns to be made an official part of the Democratic Platform, which they were (for the very first time ever). Humphrey said it was time for the Party to “get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.”

Most of the delegates from the South were outraged and stormed out of the convention. They split off and formed a third party, the States’ Rights Democratic Party, alias the Dixiecrats, and ran Strom Thurmond for president against Truman and the Republican, Dewey.


In the 1950s, non-Southern Democrats and Republicans were generally in favor of civil rights. As demonstrated by MLK and Jackie Robinson, many blacks continued to be Republican. Eisenhower was a lot like FDR in the sense he tried to avoid directly engaging in race issues, but when he had to he came down in favor of blacks (his office sent a letter to the Supreme Court when they were considering Brown v. Board of Education, saying that America having segregation made us look bad to the world and made it hard to have moral standing in criticizing the Russians for anything. And of course, he sent troops in to enforce desegregation.) I say most Republicans- but Republican intellectual William F. Buckley promoted white supremacy in the pages of his magazine National Review (he later recanted these views).

 In 1956 almost the entire Democratic Senate and House of Representatives from the South signed a “Southern Manifesto” protesting desegregation and civil rights. They were joined by the two Republican Senators from Virginia. Only three Southern Senators refused to sign –Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, and Estes Kefauver and Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee. Strom Thurmond, who had returned to the Democratic fold after the collapse of the Dixiecrats, wrote the first draft of this manifesto.

JFK, like FDR and Eisenhower, was at first reluctant to address race issues (a surefire way to anger your base at that time), but after several violent events within the space of a few months (assassination of civil rights leader Medgar Evars, dogs sicced on black children in Birmingham, and the church bombing in that same city that killed four little girls) he gave a presidential address on the subject of racism, the first president ever to do so, and this gained him a lot of support among blacks. 

After he was assassinated, LBJ took over and made it his mission to push through the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. LBJ had a lot of rough edges, and messed up royally on Vietnam, but he was sincere about fighting racism and was not afraid to be associated with the cause. When the Civil Rights Act passed, he famously said “We (the Democrats) have lost the South for a generation.” He knew, of course, that pro-segregation white Southerners –who had always been Democrats –would be furious that the party had pushed that legislation. Bear in mind, Democrats outside the South were overwhelmingly for it, as were Republicans –except those in the South (there weren’t many) and those in the Southwest, like Barry Goldwater. Southwestern Republicans had a strong libertarian streak, and were opposed to the federal government telling private businesses they could not discriminate. Goldwater and his followers also opposed LBJ’s social net / war on poverty initiatives, especially Medicare, which they called a form of communism (including actor Ronald Reagan, who switched parties to become a Republican around this time and gave a famous speech in which he said if Medicare passes one day we’ll all be communists. Reagan also opposed the Civil Rights Act.)

It was in the midst of all this that what has become known as Freedom Summer happened –summer, 1964. Civil Rights activists from all around the country went to Mississippi and started helping blacks register to vote. The goal was to elect liberal Democrats and oust the establishment racist Democrats. Several volunteers were murdered, as you are no doubt aware. Again, if D’Souza’s claim that black Southerners had turned Democrat in the 1930s were accurate, this would not have been a thing.

In 1968, Alabama governor George Wallace –who had famously stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to personally prevent blacks from entering –ran for president as an Independent. He ran for the democratic nomination in 1964 and 1972. LBJ declined to run for re-election, and Robert Kennedy was assassinated while in the lead for the Democratic nomination, and Hubert Humphrey got it instead. Former VP Richard Nixon got the Republican nod, and won the election and re-election in 1972.

This, of course, is where we talk about the Southern Strategy. Nixon –who presented himself as the “law and order candidate” and representative of the “silent majority” –employed a strategy devised by his advisers to peel away votes from the traditionally Democratic South, taking advantage of the anger white Southerners felt about desegregation, and the Democrats’ role in it. It was a plan to specifically take advantage of racism. This is a real thing, not someone’s theory; the Republican Party itself admitted to it and apologized for it (in 2005.) Note: two months after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Senator Strom Thurmond quit the Democratic Party and became a Republican, which he remained until he died in office in 2003 at the age of 100.


Here is where I let the actors speak for themselves. First, Nixon adviser Kevin Phillips in an interview in 1970. Phillips, by the way, is still a prominent conservative commentator.

      “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.” –Kevin Phillips, 1970

Next, Lee Atwater- campaign adviser to Nixon and later to Reagan and Bush Sr. This is from a 1981 interview that he thought was going to be anonymous, but after he died his identity was revealed.

·         “You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” Lee Atwater, 1981

So: in 1964 Republican nominee Goldwater was opposed to the Civil Rights Act. In 1968 and 1972 Nixon appealed to white racism to get elected. Blacks around the country stopped supporting Republicans. Go figure. But it doesn’t stop there.

What Atwater was talking about is called “dog-whistle politics.” You know, as in only the dog can hear the whistle because it is tuned only to his hearing range. You no longer come straight out and say the directly racist thing, because that would be unpopular- instead you use code language that can be defended as innocent but which racists –even if they don’t realize they are racists –will hear and understand. Atwater himself said one of those codes is “cut taxes.” How can that be racist? Because cutting taxes would mean cutting social programs, and Atwater knew that white racists –not just in the South –associated welfare with minorities, being lazy and dishonest and getting fat off the hard work of decent white people.

Remember this?


In 1976 California governor Ronald Reagan ran against incumbent president Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination. Lee Atwater was his campaign adviser. (He lost, of course, but won the nomination when he tried again four years later.)

While Reagan was on the campaign trail in 1976, he told a particular story often at stump speeches. The story is about a complaint he received from a voter –a hardworking man who can only afford to buy hamburger, while the man in front of him in the check-out line was buying steak… with food stamps. Living high off the hog at the expense of the hard-working tax-payer. According to Atwater, in a story like this a racist audience would automatically associate a person on food stamps with a minority, probably a black person. But Reagan didn’t leave it to chance. On his stump speeches in Southern states, he didn’t say “The man in front of him was buying steak.” He said “The young buck in front of him.” You know what a young buck is, don’t you? It is an old-fashioned euphemism for the n-word.

Reagan told another story on that campaign. It was about a woman he had heard about in Chicago, who was getting welfare under several different fake names, and driving a Cadillac. It was later proven that this case never happened, and was made up, but “welfare queens in Cadillacs” became a common expression of frustration for working class white voters. Reagan never said she was black- but this imaginary Cadillac-driving welfare queen of Chicago was a perfect dog-whistle.

These types of dog-whistles are still being used, by the way, they just differ over time. In the 2012 election cycle Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich talked a lot about how many of society’s problems are a result of "inner city" “urban culture” having no sense of personal responsibility or work ethic.

Urban culture.

I wonder who that is?

In fact, Dinesh D’Souza is blowing some dog-whistles in this video. He is espousing this idea that Southern blacks left the Republican Party –not as a result of the Southern Strategy after the 1960s –but in the time of FDR. And why? Because FDR was offering them free stuff, and they’re all about that free stuff at the hardworking taxpayer’s expense. By the way, side point, this is the first time I have ever heard this theory. And I don’t even know where to begin with his claim that it was only the white Southerners who weren’t racist that switched parties to become Republicans. I have to take a moment to point out that D’Souza has sold a lot of books to his conservative audience, but has no credibility among journalists or academics outside that specialized sphere (hardcore neoconservatives) and the last I heard he had been convicted on corruption charges. But I digress.

The assertion was made that a majority of Republicans in a survey said that race doesn’t matter to them, therefore there is no racism. At the same time, polls show that three-quarters or more of Republicans either conclusively believe that Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim despite all evidence to the contrary, or they believe he might be. Because he is an outsider, clearly not one of “us”.

Now let’s take a look at Republican efforts to restrict the black vote. The most talked about way is this photo ID thing, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. I am going to cheat, now, and paste a very lengthy reply I recently gave someone on Facebook who asked how on earth photo ID can be construed as racist:


It does sound normal and sensible. And know what? I'd be fine with it if the state governments that made these laws paid for the ID's, and paid to set up convenient stations for people to go and get them... and paid someone to go pick up any shut-ins or elderly people who have no way to go get the ID. But they would never do that. What makes ID racist? The fact that, if I recall the statistics right, in one of these states something like 25% of minority voters don't have a photo ID already, whereas only 5% (or somewhere around that number) of white folks don't; and there are countless horror stories about people being turned away because of insufficient ID to get ID, having to start the process all over, and of people having to travel to distant sites to get the ID, and the stations being open at odd hours, and on and on, with the end result that something like 100,000 registered voters in Wisconsin were unable to vote last election- most of them (but not all) black and other minorities. And even if you get your ID, the process of showing it slows down the line at the polls... and the same state governments that have mandated voter ID have shortened voting hours, making it more likely people will not make it through or give up and go home. Why are they doing this? A recent study showed 35 verifiable incidents of in-person voter fraud over the last decade, out of millions of votes cast. So the problem of fraud is virtually nil, and to stop it they've prevented 100,000 people from voting, just in one state. So why go to all this trouble to prevent something that almost never happens? Well, it is no coincidence that almost all of the states who do this have Republican legislatures. As Eugene Robinson points out in the article you posted, in 2012 there was a GOP politician in Pennsylvania who said publicly "Romney will be able to win this state now, because we have voter ID." And there is the situation in NC. It was proven in court that the Republican legislature authorized a study to see which forms of voting black people are most likely to use -and then, in addition to voter ID, they passed laws specifically targeting THOSE FORMS (shorter voting hours; no same-day registration, no voting on Sunday) but did not restrict the forms (early voting and mail-in ballots, for example) that their study showed black people do NOT use that much. And a NC GOP official accidentally let the cat out of the bag when he was trying to defend the state party from racism charges by saying essentially "we're not racists! Sure we are taking these steps to keep black people from voting, but it's not because we hate black people, it's because black people vote for Democrats and black voter turnout has increased by 50% and we want to make sure we win!" Federal court ruled that all that evidence proves that NC was not REALLY concerned about fraud, they were really trying to make it harder in general for black people to vote -and that is a violation of the Civil Rights Act, whether it's because of bigotry or political expedience does not matter. And in state after state judges have been striking down these voter ID laws because the evidence shows the real motive for them. In fact, my friend and mentor Vernon Burton has testified in some of these cases, as a historian of race in the South, comparing these methods of restricting the black vote with the things they did during Reconstruction (poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.), every one of which was eventually banned for being unconstitutional, but every one of which states at the time defended and propounded because they claimed it was necessary to prevent voter fraud.


That was one long paragraph! And it included a lot of approximations, reliant on memory, where statistics are concerned –I’m sure I was off a little here and there, but the points stand.

(checking the links below, I see my memory was correct- if anything, the situation is worse than I said in that FB conversation.)




The assertion was made that Democrats are racist toward black people. Again, when talking about the 19th into the mid-20th century, it does not apply that way. But I’m not letting Democrats off the hook. As I said above, one could argue that it is politics, not racism, that is leading Republican legislatures to try to curtail black voter turnout- because they know 90% or more of them would vote Democratic. But it works both ways. Because the Democratic Party knows only a tiny percentage of blacks vote Republican, they mostly give lip service to the issues that matter to the black community, with no real impetus to tackle those issues. Where are they going to go, after all? They are the same way with labor unions, and Republicans are the same way with Christian evangelicals.

In summation, it was indeed the Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy that finally flipped the South from Democrat to Republican –with help from Nixon and Reagan –and was the final straw that made black voters overwhelmingly support Democrats. The assertion that black voters support Democrats because they are lazy and want free stuff is, in itself, racist. And there is no shortage of reasons in this year of 2016 why 90+% of blacks are not voting Republican (heck, we haven’t even mentioned Trump.)



The student to whom I addressed this mini-dissertation found it very compelling and requested that I share it with the whole class, which I did. He then had a follow-up question.


Question: In light of the dog-whistle politics/Southern Strategy etc., how can I support the idea of low taxes and less government spending without being, or appearing, racist?

Answer: There were conservative Republicans promoting low taxes/low spending –and opposing FDR’s New Deal- long before the late 1960s and the Southern Strategy, and they did so with the support of a sizeable percentage of black votes. Eisenhower had 39% of the black vote in 1956. Nixon had 32% of the black vote in 1960. (Then, in ’64, Goldwater –who had opposed the Civil Rights Act –got 6% of the black vote. Nixon only got 12% in ’68, 13% in ’72. Ford got 18% in ’76- and no Republican got above 15% in the 80s and 90s. Since then: 2000, 3%. 2004, 7%. 2008, 1%. 2012, 5%. It looks like this year 1% may be kind of high.)

Eisenhower was especially popular among blacks because of his civil rights record. As I noted before, he wasn’t eager to get involved in race issues –he was from segregated Kansas- but he did not shrink back from them when they came up, and did what he thought was in the best interests of the country (including sending troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce Brown v. Board of Education, a ruling he had supported.)

So the answer to your question is: you can be financially conservative, and pursue a philosophy of limited government, so long as you don’t try to get support for that philosophy –or just get votes for people who do support it –by demonizing or minimizing the poor, which I believe Paul Ryan for example has done with his “urban culture” comments. And counter-balance that fiscal conservatism with a real concern for issues that affect black and other minority communities. I am no supporter of Rand Paul, but he is the only Republican candidate this season that I saw doing that in any fashion, in his calls for prison reform.

This conversation started with questions about the Republican Party and racism. I do not believe that being Republican makes someone a racist, by any means, nor do I believe that Republicans are generally racists – and I know plenty of white Democrats who are. But. Decades of getting votes for Republican candidates by using dog-whistle appeals TO racists has led the GOP to a dangerous place. How many neo-Nazis, Skinheads, Klansmen, and white nationalists have you heard of endorsing the Democrats lately? But how often do you hear of them endorsing Trump? And during the Obama years, how many low-and-mid level GOP politicians have you heard about getting in trouble for spreading stuff like this:





My point is, Republicans have long courted the votes of white racists –and now they are stuck with a bunch of white racists contaminating their party’s image, message, and philosophy. All the pundits and party establishment figures were astounded this past year when so many big-league conservative candidates lost out to Trump- who, if you look at his policies beyond immigration, sounds a lot more like a Democrat than a classic Republican. How could this happen? A lot of the base that the party has invested in stirring up, it turns out, were responding more to the race dog-whistles (which was planned as a tool for getting votes, not an expression of conservative philosophy) than to the libertarian-leaning fiscal responsibility message that is the actual core of the Republican Party. And now we are seeing the results of that.

Now a note about poverty and the social net. When I was growing up, here is what my situation was: my mom did not graduate from high school- I am in fact the first male in the entire history of my extended family ever to graduate high school, because the men and most women always had to quit to help support the family –so therefore the best she could do was a minimum wage job in a shirt factory. She worked full-time. She worked overtime. She worked like a dog. We had government assistance, because we needed it.

Then Ronald Reagan was elected, and within a year almost all that assistance was gone. I very distinctly remember coming home from school one day in the 7th grade, hungry, and looking in the cupboards. We had a can of Crisco, and that was it, and I knew no one was getting paid until the end of the week. If not for free school lunch, there are many days I would not have eaten at all. Trickle-down economics? I spent the ‘80s getting trickled on.

Then in the ‘90s, when I was just a few years older than you, I was a husband and father, cleaning floors for a living (mostly at Wal-mart). Most of the people I knew at Wal-mart made less money than me. They all worked hard, and most of them were adults with families, not high school students. I worked hard. My wife worked hard. I still needed food stamps and WIC to feed my family for those years. And was darned glad to get that EIC refund in the spring. And most of the people I knew were in the same boat.

When I went to college here at Tech, I was taking 18 or more hours per semester. I worked three 8 hour night shifts buffing floors at Crossville Wal-mart (Fri-Sun) and 4 to 6 hours the other four days, beginning at 4 am, buffing Food Citys in Crossville and Jamestown. That’s 40 to 48 hours per week. My wife worked as a police dispatcher but could not work full-time due to a disability. I still could not have finished college and gotten to grad school without government loans and Pell grants.

It is for these reasons that when I hear people telling stories about seeing someone buying a steak with food stamps, it makes me see red. They don’t know those people. They don’t know that maybe they are feeling depressed and down-trodden, so maybe they are going to over-spend so their family can have steak one day this week even if it means Vienna sausages the other six days.

I hear people say, “well, I grew up poor, and we grew everything we needed.” Newsflash: if you grew up poor on a farm, that means your family had enough money to afford to own land to have a farm. Not everyone has that option.

Do some people game the system? Of course. Is that reprehensible? Of course. Does that describe the majority of people who need those types of assistance? It absolutely does not. And yet, in political rhetoric, all too often people preaching fiscal responsibility lump everyone who is poor into one big category: the people who want free stuff because they are lazy and unprincipled. And I for one take that personally, because they are talking about me, about my mother, about practically everyone I worked with (worked) for years. It is an expression of classism as well as racism: the “lazy, greedy underclass” = blacks, Latinos, and white trash.

So: if you don’t think the government should provide a safety net for the disadvantaged, support conservative candidates who have pro-active plans to benefit the working class and ensure that someone who works 40 hours a week does not need public assistance. That’s what Republicans used to do… for a very long time. Heck, all that stuff I said about the founding of the Republican Party –Free Labor, self-determination, hard work, responsibility –are things which should still be at the heart of the party, and which I respect and agree with. Be like Teddy Roosevelt, who emphasized that everyone is not guaranteed success, but everyone should be guaranteed a fair shot at it. And don’t use those dog-whistles –ultimately they are just a cheap and easy way to get the support of people whose support none of us should want.


Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Sunday, July 17, 2016

No, There Were No "White Slaves" in America


I keep seeing these articles and memes going around about how there were “White slaves”, usually Irish, in the New World. I am attaching a link to a good article that debunks this idea –which is hogwash –but I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about why this myth has become so popular. It first hit the radar in a noticeable way in the 1990s –around the same time as another myth, that there were large numbers of black soldiers in the Confederacy –and, like that myth, has gained steam in the last few years. I constantly have students on exam essays talking about “white slaves” instead of indentured servants, which is what they were. How are the two different? Unlike slavery, indentured servitude was not permanent- it was limited to seven years (or adulthood, if the servant was a child). In most cases, the person signed a contract willingly, often to gain passage to the colonies. In some cases indentured servitude was forced on criminals or people in debt, and during the Cromwell years on Irish captives. But even if not entered willingly, it was not slavery: a slave did not have a contract, he was a slave until he died, and if a woman her children would be lifelong slaves as well. Plus, no one volunteered for slavery. It IS true that indentured servants had miserable lives, and many were worked to death, but those who survived for a few years went free and often even had a small monetary bonus.

So why do so many people want to insist this was actual slavery, and that there is a conspiracy to keep the public from knowing about it? Well, the conspiracy part is to counteract actual historians who would debunk it as inaccurate. But why slavery? It is no accident that this myth and the one about black Confederates have blossomed simultaneously (note: the “Irish slaves” meme proliferated on Facebook right after the event in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014.) Part of the white slavery thing is a form of ethnic pride for people of Irish descent, telling how their ancestors endured suffering. Well, the Irish certainly suffered a lot in America, but they were never slaves. And there is a deeper reason that even non-Irish white people have sustained these myths.

Here’s why: If I can say that white people were slaves TOO, then I can minimize the legacy of slavery and racism. Why, we had it as bad as you people did, and you don’t hear us still whining about it. Similarly, if I can say that large numbers of black men fought for the Confederacy, then I can go on believing that the Civil War –and said Confederacy –were not REALLY about slavery. Thus can we salve our collective conscience, while simultaneously de-legitimizing the complaints of the black community about racism.

[click HERE to see a list of "white slavery" tweets collected by Irish historian Liam Hogan in the wake of the Ferguson protests]

Now, I’m not saying that everyone who re-posts one of those articles/memes has these goals in mind. To most people it just seems like a fascinating story, and it is presented as verified fact. But you have to check the sources. You’re not going to find any credentialed, trained historians making such claims –well, maybe I should say 99.9% of them don’t, since there’s always that one wacko out there somewhere. No, most of this pseudo-history is presented by amateurs and are self-published. One notable exception is a book released by NYU Press called White Cargo, by two television documentarians. The authors make it a matter of semantics, arguing that forced servitude is slavery no matter what the circumstances or duration. People who use this argument to assert that indentured servants were slaves, in my experience, rarely agree that convict labor is slavery. The idea is also propagated a lot on white supremacist blog sites. In fact, the most cited book on the subject is 1993’s They Were White and They Were Slaves (also the first book on the subject that I’m aware of); it was self-published by a Holocaust denier who blamed the Atlantic slave trade on the Jews.

Bottom line: if you’re interested in the history, read some books about indentured servitude (which really could be a horrible experience). But when you see things framed as “white slavery” in the Americas, be aware of what’s really going on. It may seem like only a matter of semantics, but words matter... because of the ideas behind them.

By the way, here are a few quotes from readers’ reviews of White Cargo on amazon:

I assume since America was founded by the British the history books were ‘edited’ not to mention this time in history or ‘edited’ to use lighter language like ‘indentured servants’ instead of slaves.

“It is significant that two journalists wrote this extremely important book. Many professional historians don't want much attention paid to white slavery for fear that it will take something away from black slavery or make whites feel less compassion for black slaves.” [this person goes on to recommend a long list of books defending the Confederacy or denying racism]  

“Euphemistically white slavery was referred to as `indentured servitude'. Indentured servitude however was in fact slavery.

You can find my essay about forced labor on colonial plantations HERE.

You can find a well-researched essay –part of a longer piece in progress (not by me, by the aforementioned Liam Hogan) –HERE.


Note: you will find references to "white slavery" in relation to the pirates of the Barbary Coast (in North Africa). This is a completely different subject; Barbary pirates were known to capture Europeans in the Mediterranean and sell them into slavery.

List of Previous Historical Essays

I first started blogging almost a decade ago, first on my author's homepage and then, beginning in 2011, here. It was something I did to promote my writing, and most of the posts reflect that: announcing award nominations and new releases, interviews, promoting other writers in my genre(s), and a lot of blogs about the western genre, including book and film reviews.

But every once in awhile I also would write, sometimes at length, about history, culture, and world events, bringing to bear my perspective as a historian of race and a labor activist. Such essays were rare, but in the last couple of years have largely replaced self-promotion in this space.

For those who may have read some of these and found them interesting, I thought it might be helpful to provide a list of such essays in case you want to read further. And here they are, in reverse chronological order.

England, Japan, and Race (July 17, 2016)
Black Lives Matter: Historical Perspective (July 14, 2016)
On Independence Day (July 11, 2016)
Swimming Against the Tide in Higher Education (February 4, 2016)
How to Speak Southern Appalachian (December 30, 2015)
On the Confederate Flag (June 25, 2015)
The Tragedy in Charleston: What Should We Do? (June 18, 2015)
Labor Day Musings: Why Unions Still Matter (Sept. 1, 2014)
Race in Ferguson, MO – Race in America (August 24, 2014)
Writing about Indians When You’re Not One (July 28)
High Noon, Gary Cooper, and the Cold War (April 27, 2013)
Barack Obama, Race in America, and the Significance of 2012 (November 9, 2012)
Some Thoughts about Trayvon, Zimmerman, and Race in America (March 29, 2012)
History, Memory, and the American Civil War (May 16, 2011)
Race, Immigration, and New York City (February 28, 2011)
Why It Matters to Me: Gender and Sexuality (December 16, 2010)
Why It Matters to Me: Class (October 29, 2010)
Why It Matters to Me: Race (October 19, 2010)
Is There a Difference between Racism and Prejudice? (August 1, 2009)
Two Americas? (July 27, 2009)
Thoughts on Healthcare (July 23, 2009)
What I Believe: Or, Why I Am a Democrat (November 13, 2008)
Reflections on Jena, by a White Southerner (October 3, 2007)

England, Japan, and Race


This is the first of several topics I have been mulling over for a few years, which I will probably not pursue in an academic article (as I have a long queue of such articles to do.)

By presenting it in this format, I am essentially throwing a rough idea out there, not making an argument with attendant evidence. This first effort, which involves some historical similarities I have noticed in English and Japanese history where race is concerned, is no doubt full of weak points and scholars in the appropriate fields can no doubt poke a lot of holes in my loose theory. BUT, it's still interesting to think about.

First, a little background. I earned my Ph.D at the University of Illinois in 2011. My three examined fields were U.S. History (post-1815), Race and Ethnicity (with a focus on Native American and African American), and Southern U.S. History. My dissertation was entitled Race, Slavery, and Nationalism in Indian Territory: 1830-1866. I had to have a non-Western comparative element in my fields, and chose Japanese history, which has always fascinated me and which I almost chose as my graduate focus. I took Japanese history classes in both my undergrad and graduate studies, and was a teaching assistant in East Asian Civilization classes for two semesters. Nowadays I co-teach an upper division Japanese history class at Tennessee Tech.

Japanese history was a good fit for comparison when studying race in America for a couple of reasons. First, there is an indigenous, traditionally tribal people in the Japanese islands called the Ainu (genetically distinct from the Yamato or Wajin, or modern ethnic Japanese.) For centuries (along with other related groups like the Emishi) they were known as the "northern barbarians" and were eventually the focus of discrimination and efforts at forcible assimilation, not unlike Native American Indians.



Another reason to compare Japan and the English colonies/United States is the fact that, like that latter culture, Japan has developed a very strict racial hierarchy, with ethnic Japanese at the top (who also had a class-based inner hierarchy, with a group of Japanese "untouchables" called the eta), and the bottom segmented among the indigenous peoples like the Ainu, the Okinawans/Ryukyuans, and all foreigners (with Koreans probably bearing more stigma than other Asian groups.)

Studying Japanese history while also being immersed in American race studies, I noticed something else. When Japan entered their colonizing, imperialist period -much later than England had -they had similar attitudes about the "inferiority" of the groups they colonized, and were less than permissive about local rules and customs in the areas they occupied. These broad similarities started me thinking about a lot of other similarities, and how to explain them.

First, let me make a point about the European colonial powers in North America. Each major power had its own set of priorities in the New World, and those priorities would determine how they interacted with the natives. FRANCE was primarily after trade, especially the fur trade (this could be said of the Dutch, as well.) For that reason, they were not as likely as other powers to engage in full-scale settler colonialism (where you replace the natives with your own people, essentially). They tended to have more peaceful relations with Indians, establish fewer permanent settlements, and French traders frequently lived among Indians and freely adopted their customs and intermarried with them (bear in mind, this is a broad statement, and is meant primarily in comparison with the other European groups.) This is why most Indian tribes preferred the French over the English (though they all leveraged one European power against the others, to get the best deal.) Is this because the French are just naturally nicer people than other Europeans? Of course not. This only holds true in North America. In other places (such as the Caribbean), where the French had different goals, it was a completely different story and they could be just as vicious as anyone else.

SPAIN was primarily after resources, especially mineral resources. Right off the bat, Columbus set the tone by his horrible treatment of the gentle Taino people of Hispaniola, whom he enslaved and forced to provide him with gold. But contrary to The Black Legend, an idea propagated by the English that the Spanish were overwhelmingly cruel to native peoples compared to the English, the truth was more nuanced. A lot of Columbus's contemporaries were outraged by his cruelty. Bartolome de Las Cassas provides a good counterbalance: a clergyman (and contemporary of Columbus) who worked tirelessly for native rights, with considerable success. As with the French, we can say that the Spanish developed racial hierarchies of their own, but that they differed significantly from those established by the English, with considerable fluidity within them.

ENGLAND, though certainly after trade and resources, was primarily after land. The land in their colonies was quickly filled up, and there was always a desire for more land to the west, which brought them into conflict with the French and the Indians. Hence, as demonstrated in this map, the French (in blue) had a territory vastly larger then the English (in red), but there were many times more English than French colonists.



In addition to having a stronger desire for land, England differed from France and Spain in another very significant way. Spain and France were a lot more accepting of the mixed offspring of Europeans and Indians. While it is true that French plantation owners in the Caribbean colony of St. Domingue (later Haiti) had strict race laws where "mulattoes" were concerned, the French in general were more accepting than the English, who had anti-miscegenation laws for both blacks and Indians and who would called the mixed offspring of an English colonist and an Indian a "half-breed." Of all the European groups involved in North American colonialism, the English had the strictest race hierarchy, and -unlike the French, whose attitudes varied depending on their regional goals (and they weren't so "nice" in Africa and Asia) -the English carried these attitudes with them wherever they went, establishing strictly stratified racial hierarchies in all their colonies: North America, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa (though much of that was in place when the English took control of the country from the Boers, the English made it much more formalized), and so on.

In short then, the English and the Japanese, in their colonial ventures, were noticeably more prone to racial hierarchy and xenophobia.

And here are some factors which I believe contribute to the similarities.

1. England and Japan are both island nations. Their inhabitants would be less likely to regularly encounter other peoples  than if they lived on mainland Europe or Asia, and strangers stood out more.




2. Both countries "unified" their island groups by striving against "primitive" northern "barbarians". The Emishi, Ainu, etc. in Japan -the very term shogun is short for sei-i taishogun, or "commander-in-chief of the expeditionary force against the barbarians" -and the Scots and Irish etc. in England (in both cases there were large barbarian groups to the north also smaller groups in need of subduing to the south, and of course in England's case the Emerald Isle to the northwest.) In fact, now that I think about it, in both cases the dominant group was composed of migrants from the mainland who took the islands away from their original inhabitants. In other words, the English and Japanese defined themselves against the "barbarians" with whom they struggled for their island home.




3. Both countries were attacked by a huge armada from the mainland which was miraculously defeated (against the odds). The Spanish Armada attacked England in the 16th century, and the Mongols/Chinese did the same thing (twice) to Japan in the 13th century, with similar disastrous results. For the Japanese, these huge victories against the great conquerors were a sign of divine favor, and the same can probably be said for the English. It added to their sense of being special and blessed.





It seems to me that these similarities would indicate that inhabitants of a beleaguered island nation might have a predisposition toward establishing racial hierarchies. As I said at the outset, I am no doubt missing a lot of things that a specialist in these two cultures would immediately see that could deflate my loose theory. Plus, when it comes to establishing racial hierarchies, the economic stimulus of slavery looms very large, as I pointed out in a previous essay.

Still... it's interesting to think about.












Thursday, July 14, 2016

Black Lives Matter: Historical Perspective

I have a wide range of friends. It is a blessing and a curse. Specifically, in trying times when racial tensions are on the rise, I have a bit of an advantage over some of my academic friends who are more insular: a steady stream of outraged and outrageous comments from people on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me comes pouring over my facebook feed. It’s like reading the comments section of a news article. On the plus side, you get to know what a lot of people are thinking. On the minus side, you get to know what a lot of people are thinking.

For example, today I saw that several of my ultra-conservative friends were passing around a meme saying that tomorrow, July 15, is the day that Black Lives Matter protesters (“don’t call them protesters, call them terrorists,” Sarah Palin advises us) across the country have a coordinated plan to go on a 37-city killing spree. And for every person sharing that meme, there are at least a dozen comments from scared white people freaking out. If you try to tell them that BLM is a peaceful movement, they remind you that BLM has called for a moment of silence for the guy who shot all those people in Texas last week. Except that is not true, it’s just something Donald Trump has been saying in his speeches and no one anywhere has been able to find a shred of evidence to support its veracity. Or they tell you the stories of all the little children who have died all around the country because they couldn’t reach the hospital in time, due to the fact BLM protesters had blocked the interstate. Which is also totally untrue; in fact, there is evidence of the opposite, protesters expediting emergency vehicles through. Several people have deeply disappointed me by spreading memes about how funny it would be to run over protesters with a truck and kill them.

I have unfollowed or blocked a lot of people this week.

I have to be honest, for over a week now I have been suffering conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I have felt a sense of duty, as a historian of race and as an ally and as a human being in general, to speak out about what’s been going on (the shootings of two black men by police, caught on video, and the mass shooting of police and bystanders at a protest rally in Texas.)

But on the other hand, I’m tired. It just keeps coming, an endless onslaught. And with each new wave, more of my white friends, relatives and acquaintances that I thought were relatively sane have joined the cacophony of condemnation for Black Lives Matter- a movement calling for an end to unprovoked police shootings of unarmed black men. I had just steeled myself up to address this very familiar topic yet again, for the umpteenth time, when the mass shooting happened and the meager wind was knocked completely out of my sails because I knew the flames were now going to be fanned even higher.

At the same time, I realize it is my very own position of privilege that allows me to choose whether to engage with this stuff or not –it is not cast upon me against my will day in and day out, as it is for my friends of color.

But I’ve remained silent long enough. Now I am going to do my small part to try to bring historical context into the fray. I have already gone over most of the pertinent information ad infinitum. I wrote a detailed history of why white America finds male black bodies threatening HERE two years ago. I wrote a brief history of how all this started HERE, recently. So today I am going to take a different tack.

Today’s historical context will be an examination of how white America has traditionally reacted to calls to end violence against blacks.

I’ll begin with a few examples.

For the quarter-century leading up to the Civil War, abolitionists (white and black) were calling for an immediate end to slavery, highlighting the institution’s cruelty and inhumanity to the general public, by means of newspapers, slave narratives, and works of fiction such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

White Southerners, however, insisted that this was a gross exaggeration. Slaves were taken care of and quite content, until those northern troublemakers stirred them up. The plantation system was an idyllic one, with everyone being one big happy family.

As abolitionists continued to undermine that narrative by publishing the accounts of successful runaway slaves bearing tales of torture and brutality, white Southerners became resentful. You insult our honor, O Damn Yankees, by implying that our way of life –that works fine for us and which everyone is happy with, even the slaves –is immoral, somehow. How dare you. We are not the immoral ones, you are, for trying to tell us what to do and implying the federal government could make it legal for you to do so, thus depriving us of liberty and proving yourselves un-American.

And then came Nat Turner. There had been other abortive slave revolt plots in the nineteenth century, but this one had teeth and a lot of white people were killed before the rebels were caught and executed. Paranoid white slave-owners around the South killed slaves they thought were “acting funny.” Slave patrols were increased and laws made stricter. Black men out alone on the roads without their papers were surely up to no good, and plotting to murder white folks.
And then the violence got worse. More murders of slaves, then Bleeding Kansas, then a Civil War (and if you think that conflict was not about slavery, I address that HERE).

Let’s jump ahead half-a-century, to the end of Reconstruction and the dawning of the Jim Crow era… the period of time that African American historians call The Nadir, because it was the low point of African American history. By the turn of the century, lynching black men had practically become a national pastime. Whole families flocked to watch the spectacle, with snacks and postcard mementos on sale.

Brave black leaders like Ida Wells worked tirelessly to get the general public to condemn this behavior, and to get the federal government to do something about it. Race riots had also become increasingly common –and in the 19th and early 20th century, “race riot” meant a mob of white people going on a murderous rampage against minorities. In the midst of all this, a historical novel (I use both terms lightly) called The Clansman was adapted into a film by D.W. Griffith- the first blockbuster, Birth of a Nation. It not only made a fortune, it spurred the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan, which by the mid-1920s was huge all around the country (by some estimates one out of every seven white men in the country were members.) The movie depicted brutish ex-slaves and their Yankee manipulators as ruining the South and wantonly raping Southern white women, with the valiant KKK arising to stop the injustice. This fed into real life, as the year after the end of WWI (in which many blacks served in France and saw a desegregated society, returning home with a military bearing and less patience for racial bullying) saw the “Red Summer” of 1919, in which black communities were attacked all around the U.S. with countless lives lost.

Half-a-century after that we have the Black Freedom Era (Civil Rights followed by Black Power). Same patterns: segregationists denied there was a problem, everybody’s perfectly happy down here until you liberals and communists start stirring them up. The segregationists got resentful. Then there was fear of social upheaval if the status quo was disrupted, especially when younger blacks like Stokely Carmichael moved from nonviolent resistance to calls for black self-defense. Then the violence escalated.

This, then, is the pattern:

1.      Blacks and their white allies accuse some whites, and especially the structured status quo, of being violent against blacks (or being in favor of same).
2.      Racist whites –usually not thinking of themselves as racist at all –deny that there is a problem. Or if there is, it is being caused by the agitations of blacks and their allies.
3.      Racist whites start to get defensive, insulted at the accusation they could be engaging in wrong behavior.
4.      Those defensive whites become increasingly paranoid and fearful, specifically that those uncontrollable blacks are going to come after them.
5.      Violence –especially violence against blacks by whites –gets much worse.
6.      Much like the aftermath of the Salem Witch trials, the mob starts to get a little embarrassed about the excesses they have gone to (though few would admit it), and it peters out. Some are apologetic. Then everything is back to normal, with the status quo continuing as always. The people who were so paranoid, resentful, and enraged have calmed down and take the new calm as evidence the problems have all been solved and now everything is great again. Let’s not bring it up anymore, it will only cause more trouble.

Note how much this sounds like an abusive marriage.

Note how much this sounds like events of the past four years.

The only way to ever break this cycle is for the majority of white people to step back and actually SEE what has been going on, see and acknowledge, instead of being defensive and fragile. To see what the momentum of the great American race machine has repeatedly led us into, and resolve to really do something about it. But it starts with acknowledgment, a step most white Americans somehow seem incapable of doing.


And those of us who are in that position of privilege and power who have figured it out? It is our duty to keep trying to make everyone else see, and to lend our utmost support to our brothers and sisters of color. That is not “white guilt”; that is white responsibility, the responsibility to use our very privilege in the system that intrinsically benefits us to work against that system and help dismantle it (to help do so, using our position, not to muscle our way into the role of telling our partners of color how to experience their own oppression or present ourselves as “white saviors.”)