Concluding The New Jim Crow

The other day in my  class reminded me just how much of a disconnect there is between the reality of colorblind racism and the version of reality that we are fed by media and politics and social conditioning. We were talking about Ursinus and how particular issues are difficult for students to discuss and that they often avoid, like race and wealth inequality. My teacher is Spanish and she talked about how in Spain race isn't as big of an issue as it is in the United States and she speculated that this was because we have such a recent and turbulent history of racism and slavery in the US, which alligns with Alexander's assertion that "our understanding of racism is therefore shaped by the most extreme expressions of individual bigotry, not by the way in which it functions...embedded in the structure of a social system" (183-184). She also talked about how absurd she found the practice of checking ethnicity/race boxes on forms and talked about the arbitrary nature of these different categories,  such as how she is expected to mark Hispanic but is technically Caucasian. I would definitely have to agree with her about the absurdity of these categories. Then, we were discussing one of her  black students who went abroad and dated someone in Sevillle. She told us that she immediately felt pity for the student when she told her that she had been dating someone there, because she knew that it would end, because "A true Seville man--and I'm sorry to say this--will never marry a black woman." It absolutely blew my mind that she could say race wasn't a big deal or a concern in Spain and then in a matter of 10 minutes make a statement like that.  Clearly, race is a big deal in Spain and will continue to be until such a statement isn't possible.

When Alexander discussed how the civil rights movement and lawyers became disconnected from the people whom they were supposed to serve, it reminded me a lot of the environmental movement and how this happened with organizations like the Sierra Club, who nowadays treat their members like subscribers or consumers,  sending things through the mail and asking for monetary donations, rather than asking for their time and work. The bureaucracy that accompanies these groups often obscures their original purpose and distance themselves from the very people whom they meant to advocate for, which is why I find it can be detrimental for organizations to enter the legal . For although legislation and winning cases is very important for the cause to fight for rights, once again I believe that ideological shifts are the primary vehicle to change people and keep the interests of those who the fight is for at heart. I think a lot of the struggle involves changing public thought and  years social conditioning from the media, law enforcement, politicians, etc.  It is difficult for movements to not morph in this way, given the fact that they often depend upon playing by the rules and focusing on feasible reform rather than having revolutionary goals and mindsets. I understand the need for figures like Rosa Parks in terms of fighting against prolific racial stereotypes and getting validation in the system, but using "poster boys" to prove that some black people are worthy only panders to white people and doesn't challenge the problematic stereotypes and the system itself.

New Jim Crow: Chapters 4-5

I think the most difficult thing to swallow is the idea that there is no way of being successful in this system once you're part of it. If the true goal of the criminal justice system were rehabilitation and ending crime, rather than its true goals of profit and social control, then it would not be so exclusionary  and near impossible to reintegrate back into society. How do we expect crime to end and people to become re-acclimated to society after prison time  if they are unable to get jobs, find places to live,  keep their families together, get housing., and discriminated against with impunity? Once relegated to this position, it seems virtually impossible to vacate it. And they don't have the proper warning prior to pleading guilty or accepting a plea bargain, because no one in the court system is required to tell them of these "collateral consequences" (143). I also thought it was appalling that people are at risk even if they have had no direct knowledge or involvement in drug use, but have a relative who has had some sort of involvement with illegal drug activity, which forces families to choose between taking care of themselves or helping out their family members who have recently been released from jail and have no where to go. The fact that suspicion is enough to expel or refuse someone from housing is particularly upsetting. These sorts of laws just push people back to drugs (if they even had a serious problem in the first place or if it was a matter of mere possession) or prison, which creates a vicious cycle. Also, I was extremely shocked by how tough a stance Bill Clinton had on "crime," especially in regards to the "one strike" rules of public housing. Given how he is seen as such a progressive president, it is hard to believe that he was able to do such things and was celebrated, rather than lambasted, for them, which goes to show the problematic ideology of punishment over treatment in regards to drugs in this country.Thisreality reminded me of a documentary I saw about this tent city of people who have served time as sex offenders, and  are therefore restricted from living in certain neighborhoods due to rules about living near schools and playgrounds and the like. Forced to find shelter in the woods, they now have small communities where they struggle for survival. Like the "felon" label, once given the label of sex offender, they are marginalized and rejected from mainstream society. Although it's hard to be sympathetic towards someone who has abused a child, at the same time these people have no where to go and it is likely that they will never get the psychiatric help needed to help prevent future crimes they may commit and doesn't solve the problem of sexual abuse by any means. When we treat people as subhumans, no matter what the reason may be, this never makes us any better than those whom we are looking down upon, and arguably makes us worse.

Musings from the past week

I was recently talking to a friend about misogyny and sexism, and he said that he considers himself to be a "recovering sexist" rather than a feminist, but that his ultimate goal is feminism. He talked about the fact that until he came to college he wasn't aware of his male privilege or his white privilege, because he never had reason to be. He was socially conditioned in school to believe that women were conquests and that his masculinity was derived through them. Additionally, he didn't understand  a lot of things about race as well, because he was never alerted to his privileged position and never had to recognize harmful patterns of social marginalization and discrimination, since he is part of the dominant group. One thing that particularly struck me was when he said that he knew that black face was wrong because he had been told so, but didn't understand why until it was explicitly explained to him. At first I reacted with shock, but then I had to pause and realize that he was talking about bettering himself and that he was coming from a place of ignorance, so unless he was able to ask these questions and have these kind of conversations with people, which he was more than willing to do, he never would be able to progress. Oftentimes, and I have been guilty of this, people who consider themselves to be progressive jump on others or are frustrated with them when they express inherently ignorant statements or ask questions that we see as so blatantly obvious. But this isn't an intentional ignorance. Rather, some people genuinely don't know what white privilege is and why it's wrong to dress up as a Native American on Halloween, so unless we are willing to answer their questions and not insult them for their lack of knowledge they will remain in the dark about these issues. How can we express anger towards someone who simply hasn't had the exposure to these problems? Yes, they are not of more concern than those who are currently being oppressed, but they are a key part of ending oppression.

On the other end of the spectrum, I recently got into a discussion with people about the idea of everyone's entitlement their opinions and whether their beliefs are worthy of respect simply because they have a right to them. One person posed the argument that although someone's opinion may be offensive and harmful, it is  nonetheless still a person's right to say it. I thought about this in the context of race and I have to disagree to a certain degree. Yes, everyone is entitled to say what they feel, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't challenge them or take them to task in regard to telling them that what they said was problematic and inaccurate and why. I don't think we should forgo criticizing or deconstructing arguments on the basis that it was "brave" for a person to express how he or she feels no matter the subject matter or position. The belief that what a person believes is personal and his or her own business is simply not true, because our beliefs don't occur in a vacuum and we don't act upon them in a vacuum either. If we all cultivate our own thoughts and don't interact with one another and discuss them and stand up to the damaging ones, we will never escape from the racist ideologies that bind us. How can we stop actions and beliefs if we don't speak out against them? If someone gives his or her racist opinion and isn't challenged, how is he or she to know that there is an alternative dialogue and that people don't agree with him or her? As far as I'm concerned silence is on par with complicity.

The New Jim Crow: Intro and Chapter 1

A lot of what was said in the introduction of The New Jim Crow reminded me of our discussion last class, in which we were debating whether policy changes are more crucial than ideological changes and which one needs to come first. It seems apparent to me that the ideological shift in the form of a social movement is the crux of Michelle Alexander's argument for change, given how adaptable the racial caste system is: "the history of racial caste...would end with the Civil War if the idea of race and racial indifference had died when the institution of slavery was put to rest" (Alexander 26). Therefore, I would argue that the ideological shift is much more important than any policy, which are at times implemented for reasons other than racial justice. Given that we live in a racially stratified country and have a racial caste system despite the fact that overt racism and bigotry is taboo, it is clear that systemic racism is the larger issue and  because of this racism built into certain institutions often goes unnoticed and disparities in wealth and success are often justified by harmful stereotypes. How can we expect policies that defend affirmative action to stop white people from believing that their nonwhite colleagues got a leg up or an advantage, if their white privilege allows them to overlook the fact  that their white skin has provided them with unbelievable advantages.
Alexander makes a valid point about how overlooked the criminal justice system is.
Although I've always viewed the War on Drugs as a failure and  full of racial bias and I recognize how corrupt the system is as well as how ineffective jail is, but I never saw it or the criminal justice system as forms of social control.  It was only in college that I became aware of how truly racist it is, and I was horrified to find out about private prisons and the ways in which  judges and the owners of the prisons profited from putting people in jail as well as utilizing them for free labor. What's more, it was only recently that I became aware about the exorbitant court fees that people are expected to pay once they leave prison, which often lands them back in jail after they are unable to afford them. On that note, I am continuously astounded about how much the education system has failed me and my peers in terms of giving us an honest account of the history and current reality of our country. I remember how shocking it was to learn that there was such a thing as "crooked cops," this force of people who we are told to trust from elementary school on. Of course, these cops aren't an issue for me as a middle class white girl, but it was disillusioning nonetheless to realize that they weren't the benevolent force I'd been told to see them as. As Alexander points out, "the story that is told during Black History Month is one of triumph" (21). This was certainly true at my school as well, where the focus was slavery and the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights Movement were glossed over. MLK was a whitewashed figure who believed in peace and wanted everyone to get along. It astounds me how much was left out about him. I think it's important to mention how we often elevate the black people who have "made it" as proof of our equality, much in the same way we emphasize successful women to claim that sexism no longer exists. These people are  the exceptions and not the rule, and at times have to play by the rules of the dominant ideology in order to ascend at all.

White Bonding and Halloween

I was struck by the passage about white bonding, which Wise referred to as when in a all-white situation some individuals will "take the opportunity to to make some kind of overtly racist comment, or tell a racist joke, as if it were perfectly acceptable to do so, as if no one else  else in the group would mind" (193). The assumption that fellow whites will hold the same racist opinion or brush off racist jokes based upon their humor, seems to speak volumes about white privilege. When Wise pretends that he is half black, the man who tells the racist joke at dinner is immediately apologetic and embarrassed, therefore proving that he knew what he was saying was offensive and wrong, but he felt as though it were okay to tell it due to his white audience. I have had conversations about the very same phenomenon with my mom and she has always expressed her incredulity, wondering why people feel as though she'll agree with them simply because they are both white. For example, I attended a private, Catholic school for my first few years of school, and one time my mother was talking with a few moms  in the schoolyard after dropping us off. One of them was an au pair and recently married. Somehow the conversation got onto biracial couples and the au pair said she  hoped to send her future to a private school as well, as she didn't want them to be around "niggers". Another mother chimed in and said something along the lines of it being natural for blacks and white to be separated on the basis that "God didn't intend for elephants and monkeys to mate." My mother immediately retaliated, saying that her choice of animal was particularly indicative of her racist views and they shouldn't assume that she'd be okay with their use of that word and their statements. The au pair was embarrassed and apologized to my mother, but all conversation shut down after that.My mother was so taken aback by the overt racism and the hypocrisy of these supposed good, Christian women. And although some could argue that this statement  was much more offensive than a racist joke, it's important to look at the everyday, "little" things that contribute to and perpetuate racist ideologies. Micro-discrimination contributes to the larger structure of racism and keeps those who are oppressed in their place by attacking and discouraging them in small ways. As Wise astutely pointed out, putting people on the offensive and asking for them to not say those kinds of things around you doesn't tackle the racism behind the statements. Questioning  assumed white solidarity would be more effective in understanding how racism operates and allows for people to consciously take stock of their views and ideally interrogate the source of these feelings. Or at the very least, having people check them on their jokes and the like will make them realize that it isn't okay in any crowd.

This gets me to another point about black face and Halloween, and more specifically, the use of black face last year at Ursinus. A group of students dressed up as the US women's gymnastics team, and one student, dressed as Gabby Douglas, wore black face. After the incident was reported and the USGA held a meeting about it, following a a seminar on the history of black face,  I recall hearing many white  students complaining that the school and the students who reported it were being "too sensitive." The responsibility was then placed on the people who were offended by the student's costume, not the student himself. White students complained that they felt restricted and that we weren't allowed to have any fun anymore, especially when this was followed by the administration's condemnation of sombreros and mustaches at a Tequila party. Rather than taking the lesson from this situation, many white students saw themselves as the victims and the administration's requests for cultural and racial sensitivity when it came to party themes as a form of oppression. I recall one student saying that it would be better if we just didn't talk about race, because it only got people upset, a statement that could only come from someone who has never experienced racial oppression or discrimination. Such reactions showed me how white privilege allows us  a great degree of ignorance and obscures the non white realities and perspectives of black students at Ursinus. It reminded me a lot of the reactions the University of Illinois students had in the book when their racist mascot was changed. Ignoring the history of black face, as well as the issue of race itself, only perpetuates racist behavior and trivializes the mocking and damaging effect of certain costumes and the ubiquitous cultural appropriation on Halloween. These harmful representations allow the continuation of  racial stereotypes, and we should be forced to examine our practices and understand the reason why it is not okay to dress up as a caricature of another race, such as Trayvon Martin, just as it is not okay to dress up as a dead Boston marathon runner as evidenced by the recent uproar on social media. How can one of these costumes be unacceptable, while the other is just a "joke"? These costumes are dehumanizing and although the intention may not always be racist, we have to understand the underlying social and cultural meaning of them. Just because it was a thoughtless costume doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about it and identify it as wrong. I think this quote sums it up well: "To avoid dealing with the legacy of white supremacy, we will change the subject, blame the victims, play the victim" (240).

Tyler Perry and Drag, Steve Harvey and Black Church Culture Reflections

I attended the lunch on Wednesday about Tyler Perry and similar comedians like Steve Harvey and the ways in which their comedy discusses race and gender. I thought it was an  interesting discussion. Rachel talked about how her research led her to explore the ways in which women are portrayed through these depictions of black church culture. A big issue she found is that although these films can do important work in terms of bringing black church culture to the mainstream, it's problematic in that it puts women in traditional roles and demonizes them and portrays them as promiscuous when they try to change their roles.
She also discussed how these movies could potentially be harmful, because they are sending different messages to different audiences, namely white and black audiences. She discussed how Black audiences could appreciate some of the references about church culture found within these films, but that white people could possibly form damaging opinions based upon the fact that they don't understand this culture. I found this very interesting, because I have definitely heard white relatives derisively talk about such movies, wondering why black people would wish to be portrayed in this way, but once again that sort of statement assumes that these movies and the black producers and actors represent all black, which is patently untrue.
I think it's hard to determine whether these texts like "Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man" and Tyler Perry movies are more beneficial in terms of race or more harmful in terms of gender. As we've discussed in class and I've heard time and again in my sociology courses, when we try to challenge one set of power relations, we can inadvertently reinforce another set of power relations. So although it is good that black women are getting mainstream recognition through Steve Harvey's book, his suggestions require adherence to traditional and problematic gender roles. And this leaves black women in that "double bind" where they are oppressed both for their race and their gender. Rachel says she would like to see black women like her who are pursuing academia or a career. Knowing how Tyler Perry tends to portray women and punish them sexually, it is difficult for me to not take issue with his movies, but as we acknowledged at the lunch, we are still allowed to like problematic things. We must recognize why we like it and think about it critically and discuss its issues with friends and family, but we are still allowed to engage with it, so long as that engagement is mindful and thorough. I guess what I'm wondering is, where do you draw the line between liking something, but thinking about it critically, and dismissing a cultural artifact entirely for the ideologies behind it?

White Like Me Chs. 3-5

It was interesting when Tim Wise was talking about the idea of overindulgence and privilege going hand in hand. It reminded me of  Ursinus, particularly the way in which my fellow students trash Reimert on the weekends, as well as damage the residence halls when they are drunk. The sense of entitlement that  comes with this behavior is absurd. To think that we are allowed to act in this way simply because we are college students and this how we let off steam, knowing that we will probably not have to clean it up or will have to pay shared fines, is disgusting. What's more, we know that the consequences of drinking and drugs are far less severe for us in this mostly white bubble, as well as outside of it, by virtue of our skin and status as college students. The idea of belonging, of not questioning our right to be here, to essentially destroy school property is extremely prevalent. In fact, Reimert has been at its cleanest this year simply because we have the new pilot program which allows us to have open containers in the courtyard. If it weren't for this new privilege, the courtyard would remain just as trashed as it has in years past.  On the contrary, the mostly Hispanic cleaning staff is left to clean up the mess, while students complain about them "intruding" in their suites and bathrooms and "blasting music," but without them we'd be living in filth generated by our overblown privilege. The lack of respect some students show towards them definitely seems racialized to me.
Another important thing Wise point out was that "privilege sometimes costs us clarity of vision" (124). Rather than working on the apartheid and racism in New Orleans, his group was far more focused on South Africa and never made the connection between where he lived and the issue he chose to advocate about, which is yet another benefit of white privilege: selecting what issues we want to get active about, rather than becoming  active out of necessity. This reminded me of high school, where we had groups like "Save Darfur," but failed to connect these issues to or acknowledge the poor, mostly black community 15 minutes down the road and the very real violence and food insecurity there. The fact that we were able to raise all this money for those in Darfur without once questioning how this could possibly connect to the nearby city of Chester shows just how strong white privilege is. We never talked about the racial separation in our school either. I never thought about it, because I never had to, since I never felt like the "other" in the classroom.