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.

White Like Me Chs. 1-2

I keep thinking about my own responsibility for my white privilege  and the idea of treating it as an asset: "if you get to use an asset, you have to pay the debt accumulated, which allowed the asset to exist in the first place" (24-25).  If we truly wanted to move on and forget what happened, call the past the past, that would imply that whites have to give up the benefits incurred by virtue of their white skin, which would never happen. I keep thinking about just how inundated I am by white supremacy and "white reality." It's startling to look back upon past experiences with a critical eye and realize just how racialized daily life is. And the only reason I've been able to overlook this reality is because I'm white. When I look back at my passive participation in this racist system, it's upsetting to think about how I was able to overlook subtle and systemic racism, while overt racism always incited anger in me. I can remember getting into heated fights with classmates over race and prejudice, but never really digging deeper into why the black kids tended to hang out with the black kids and the Asians hung out with the Asians, never questioning my own circle of mostly white friends and just how racialized my own life was/is. Even though I lived for eight years in Chester and had black neighbors and black friends, I went to mostly white private school, and this "social separation" only increased as time went on. By high school, in a mostly white neighborhood and school district, the most interaction with minorities came through the "A Better Chance" program, which brought  Hispanic and black students from inner cities to attend our high school. There were GPA requirements and they lived in houses with strict rules and were assigned mostly white host families. The bus I took home every day also stopped at the ABC houses, and  a lot of  verbal and/or physical fights often broke out on the bus.  I also remember hearing some of the complaints about how some of the ABC students "took advantage" of their white host families' generosity, demanding material items or money, accepting gifts without gratitude. As if they were expected to be grateful for misplaced liberal guilt. I remember how outraged I felt originally upon hearing all of this, but now I've come to realize just how much my white privilege blinded me to the vulnerable and racialized position the ABC students were placed in. This whole situation reminds me of the scenario Wise talked about when his friends called him "my nigger": "a cat and mouse routine where the white boy doesn't realize he's being used... in the same way some folks had long been used, and were still being used everyday" (37). These students were scrutinized both in their behavior and in their academic performance, with the threat of begin kicked out of the ABC house if they violated any of the rules hanging over their heads, and the unspoken expectation that they be grateful of this chance this white community had so generously given them. As I reflect on the true power dynamics of the program, it's quite clear to me that once again  whites have the upper hand and dictate the rules. The program is flawed, not because the students abuse it, but because of its white savior complex. I think this book is really good for us to read, particularly for the white students in the class, because it can help us realize just how much our skin color benefits us on a daily basis and forces us to reexamine experiences from a racial perspective.

Ch. 6

Taylor discussed the "racial fantasyland" we've created in America and the racialized stock characters we fill it with, explaining that this invented reality obscures the true reality. This is why we are able to push forward public policy based on inaccurate statistics and assertions. He talked specifically about immigration and the way policy is focused on enforcement rather than administrative services within the broader context of a society that deals with social problems punitively.  This reminded me of a book we read in one of my Sociology courses called Righteous Dopefiend, which detailed the lives of homeless heroin addicts in Los Angeles. Their campsites and drug use were criminalized and funding was funneled into the police force rather than shelters and clean needle facilities. The police would periodically seize their needles and trash their sites, effectively forcing them to relocate and share needles rather than getting them off the streets and dealing with their addictions. There was also explicit racism within the homeless community, with white users at the top and blacks at the bottom. The black users were stereotyped in specific ways and their practices were looked down upon by their fellow users. They also had fewer resources and less stable families. Even in extreme environments where these people are fighting for survival and rely on each other to a certain extent, race still plays a significant role in their individual interactions and creates divides and animosity. As Taylor pointed out, "The point has not been that these phenomena are always and only about race. It has been that race is relevant" (202). Going back to immigration, Taylor talks about how those who emigrate to the US, particularly those who are Latino/Latina, are seen as   "...inassimilable, perpetual foreigners--even if they happen to have been born in their 'new' home" (189).  If you are not white, you are your race or ethnicity first, American second. We classify their food, traditions, behaviors, etc. in negative, abject terms that classify them as 'others' and assume our Western, white way of life is right and normal. This ideology helps to justify exploitative policies and overlook the issues faced by immigrants in their home countries. If we see them as problem people who caused their own issues by virtue of being a particular race and having a certain of traits, then we don't have to think about our own role within these injustices and don't need to offer assistance. Instead, we can discuss them in dehumanizing terms, accuse them of undermining our economy and job market, and police them with policies that are essentially forms of racial-profiling. 

Chapter 5

Taylor poses the following question at the beginning of the chapter: in a society where 'color consciousness' is frowned upon, why is it seen as acceptable in the conjugal sphere?  Intra-racial relationships and marriages are considered the norm, while interracial relationships are subjected to scrutiny and varying degrees of discrimination, because they are often deemed 'unnatural' or 'unusual.'  As I mentioned in a previous post, when my cousin had a black boyfriend, she was met with much disapproval and at times accused of betraying her fellow 'whites,' advised  to 'stick with vanilla' and the like.  A definite portion of the backlash was the result of resisting social pressures, particularly from family members--especially those of older generations   If the idea of 'market solidarity'  is not a concern for whites, what exactly is at work here? Is it the result of  years of negative conceptions about black people and  the promotion of white aesthetics and superiority? The entrenched and dated attitudes of people in my grandparents' generation? In terms of the idea of relationship capital, did people perceive my cousin to be 'lowering'  her own status?

And this doesn't even touch upon her boyfriend's experience and the backlash he received, of which I know little. I can definitely understand to an extent the arguments of 'cultural preservation,' although they don't hold given that race is a social construct. I can see how dating or marrying a member of the dominant, oppressive race--although this individual may not be responsible for said oppression--could be seen as a betrayal of sorts. A race that enslaved, discriminated, and subsequently appropriated the culture and practices it originally tried to stamp out. But how we will ever cease our social differentiation along racial lines if we remain within the us vs. them mindset and create separate racial coalitions and such? As Taylor says, "...the real key to equality is a much exogamy...as possible. After all, advocates of this view have said, why would I discriminate against my own relative?" (165). We already face the barrier of largely separate white and black social spheres thanks to zoning, real estate, job discrimination, wealth gaps, etc. 

I have never heard the argument that interracial relationships could be an expression of self-hatred before. This reminded me of high school when my Asian friend was telling us how excited his mom was that he was taking a 'white girl' to prom rather than an Asian girl. Was she expressing self-hatred when she said this and a desire for her son to improve his social capital through association? Or was she happy that he didn't feel obligated to stick to his own kind? I'm not sure what was exactly at play here, but I feel as though the self-hatred argument is too weak to adequately prove. Instead, we must be aware of our attitudes and their sources. Also, Taylor  argued that JJ's decisions were less important than those of a role model in the public sphere. While that person does have a much greater influence and  audience,  I don't think either one of them should be expected to choose life partners on the basis of their racial identity so as to prevent psychological harm to their race. Yes, perhaps their choices and their ideas of beauty and sexuality are largely influenced by white supremacy, but how can we prove that their relationships are based upon self-hatred and not love, and how would creating the obligation of intra-racial marriages do anything then perpetuate the patterns that are already in place? What's more, the continued stigma between interracial relations will continue the social segregation already at play in the US. It's much more effective to target the conditions that produce problematic individual choices instead of vice versa. Then within the conjugal sphere  given "other things being equal... [we are able to] focus on character, not color" (159). 

Taylor also discussed affirmative action policies. I can remember during the college application process in high school students would complain about how they wished they had some sort of ethnicity that would give them the edge they needed for their first choice school or make statements like "she only got in to that school because she's black."Upon further examination, these arguments are rather flimsy and only based upon problematic assumptions. After all, the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. It wasn't until I took an intro Sociology course and we discussed the objectives of affirmative action (namely, giving under-represented groups and populations who are socially situated in ways that disadvantage them a foot in the door, an opportunity they might not other wise have) that I truly understood its benefits and necessity.  I don't think quota filling is a noble pursuit, but I do see the merit in fighting historical discrimination and providing outreach and inclusion for those who have been systematically oppressed and excluded. We always run into issues with our heavily individualistic American perspective, which fails to look at the good of the collective people and instead places people in cutthroat competition with one another for social goods like education and jobs. 

Yet, at the same time, Taylor pointed out that affirmative action policies were concessions to Civil Rights leaders to contain and satisfy the opposition.  This is something I had never considered before and it concerns me how it aligns so well with the concept of 'rule by consent." If that's the case, then is affirmative action just a false prize that distracts from the root problems of racism and racial inequality? As it stands, I think it is a necessary set of policies for attempting to make up for historical inequality, but is it really doing its job?

Ch. 4: Existentialism and Race

I found Taylor's focus on identity to be particularly important. Namely, his point that it is incredibly difficult to get people to see you as you wish to be seen, particularly in the face of negative conceptions of race, stereotypes, and prejudice. Within this society, our social capital is largely dependent upon how we are perceived by the world, rather than our internal perceptions of ourselves and our values, goals, etc. As a white, middle class American, I possess countless privileges, such as invisibility through normalization (aka I am seen as the "norm" and not called out for racial or ethnic differences). Although it is not as extreme as racial discrimination and stereotyping, I can, however, sympathize from the standpoint of a woman within a patriarchal society when attempting to shape my social identity, which is largely out of my hands. There's the fear of voicing my opinion in male-dominated environments and the risk of being dismissed or not taken seriously. Or having my behavior  generalized as "the way girls act/are."  I think this idea of fear of social identity can also apply to why we have a guilt obsession in our class and such trouble maintaining conversations, particularly for us white students. I've noticed many of my classmates making qualifying statements like "I'm not prejudice because..." or "Yes I enjoy these privileges, but I didn't ask for them..." We want to show we are sympathetic to injustices and want no part of past and current racism, yet it doesn't always seem genuine. We are trying to present the image of non-racists, because we don't want others to see as politically incorrect or intolerant (and it may be true that we don't have conscious prejudice or racist thoughts, but our motivations for telling the class this are questionable and doing so doesn't add any substance to the conversation). At he same time, we want frank discussions in our class but don't seem able to. This may be in part because we don't want our comments to jeopardize how others perceive us. I am definitely guilty of this at times, and I'm wondering how to get past this anxiety in order to have real, effective conversation.
To turn it back to race, nonwhites are fighting against years of stereotyping, restrictive racial scripts (that often come in conflict with other "scripts" from other societal groups they belong to), framing as alien "others," fear of whether their actions or words will reflect badly upon their race. For example when I took the writing fellows course, we talked about how minorities often struggle to make their voice heard in the class room because oftentimes teachers and fellow classmates see them as representatives of their entire race and not their individual beliefs. What's more, there's the idea that one should adhere to certain loyalties and values as per their racial scripts, regardless of their personal preferences.

Understandably, this leads to existential crises and questions like "why bother?" Why bother to be ambitious when no one will take me seriously? Why bother to fight against systemic racism when it seems to adapt and grow stronger? This  brought me back to part of the discussion we had last class. In the face of so much oppression and knowledge of historical and systemic injustices, it's hard not to feel apathetic and hopeless. This reminded me of the conversation between Florka and Tyrell about capitalism and white supremacy. I could sympathize with Tyrell when he said something along the lines of  "It doesn't seem very likely that the current scheme of things will ever change." In the face of such ubiquitous systems and dominant yet invisible ideologies, it's hard to see how our society could change as drastically as we need it to. Yet, at the same time, there's no guarantee that these systems will remain or worsen. To borrow from Taylor, I think this is why the idea of "double consciousness" is so important and in this instance I'm talking about the double consciousness that white people need to adopt: the dual acknowledgement of past and current violence and prejudice and the knowledge that there were/are many whites against these systems.  Apathy only perpetuates the systems and makes one a participant in the inequalities, indirectly or not. 

Ch. 3

Although Taylor only briefly brought up the drastic difference in rates between  intra-racial marriage and inter-racial marriage and the concept of racialized relationship capital, it definitely resonated with me. I can recall so many conversations or situations that are a direct consequence of "....deeply ingrained, subtly established, and thoroughly racialized preferences about romance, eroticism, status, and beauty" (83). For instance, when my cousin had a black boyfriend, my uncle was so upset and angry and quite a few people told her that she should "stick to white boys." I can also remember when  I was eight and my good family friend brought her black friend up to her parent's cabin house for a weekend. It was a gathering of a bunch of people who my parents grew up and went to school with as well as their families. A lot of them are pretty conservative rednecks, which I only came to realize as I got older and my parents would get into heated conversations with them. I watched these people I'd grown up around either making snide remarks or talking about how 'brave' she was to bring her friend to her parent's cabin, which struck me as absurd. It was very disturbing to hear people who'd been in my life since infancy express such blatant prejudice.

Most recently, I was having a conversation with a friend, who is pretty liberal and open-minded--or so I thought--and the topic of inter-racial dating and marriage came up. He told me how he thought inter-racial couples were "weird" and didn't understand how they could they be attracted to each other. He said he could objectively say that a black woman is good-looking, but he would never be physically or emotionally attracted to her. I tried to push back, arguing that it's not as though we're different species and love doesn't stem from looking similar, but he wouldn't budge in his view. His own defiance against the possibility and investment in social constructs prevents him from finding black women attractive, not a natural inclination.  I was completely shocked by the obvious distaste in his voice and how adamant he was. I never would've thought that he would express such views, and it made me realize just how prevalent this attitude is and how I've even lapsed into a milder version of this viewpoint at times. Cultural differences and racialized social differences do not make us so fundamentally different that it's strange or wrong to develop friendship or feelings for people who fall in other racial categories other than our own.

As Taylor pointed out that to a large degree we are "...still committed to producing and reproducing racially homogenous populations" (83). What's more, we still rely so heavily upon racialized symbolic value and the stereotypes that are products of this. I sometimes find myself thinking in stereotypical terms, and I have to be constantly vigilant to keep myself from falling into these easy patterns of differentiation that permeate our society. 

 Last class we struggled to interrogate the concept of racism and what it means to truly be racist. Not only because it is a complicated issue with many different ways of looking at it, but also because it is such a charged word  that is difficult to talk about for fear of saying "the wrong thing."  Is it  systemic or is it inter-personal? Is it ignorance or is it deliberate? Are all white people racist? Can nonwhites be racist? I thought it was important that Taylor pointed out that we don't have to reduce the idea of racism--or race-thinking for that matter--to a single narrative or model. Instead, if we look at the idea of disregard, we can begin to understand the pluralist ways in which racism is manifested and the ways in which we can work to end it. What's more, Taylor also touched on the idea of indirect racists, which describes people who benefit from the system by merit of their identity (namely, white), as well as the fact that seemingly racist behavior of nonwhite people is insignificant compared to the structural violence of white supremacy. A lot of the  discussions in this chapter reminded me of some of what I've learned from reading feminist theory and queer theory. Mainly, that  the white, heterosexual male identity is seen as the default and standard of being a human (much like monogenism discussed in the chapter, where other races are seen as degenerate versions of the "original" white race), while other identities are classified as "other." Rather than considered a representative of humanity, their ways of life are seen as abject in comparison to the supposed norm. Since our society is constantly engaged with the ideology of white dominance, it becomes "normal" and masquerades itself as "the way things are." In fact, being white often isn't seen as having a race. It's only when non-dominant voices and opinions are heard that we can question the dominant ones, which seems to be what Joel Osmundson is trying to get at in the article "Love Letter to White People": "Let us learn to trust truths that we cannot live in. Let us question our own implication in these narratives." As scary as it is, I think it's extremely important to questions the status quo and our own individual participation within unequal institutions, particularly if we benefit from the current social hierarchy (like myself  as I am white and middle class). I definitely think awareness and education are crucial, but what I'm currently grappling with is how do we change the system? And even if we can enact anti-racist policies, how do we change ideologies? 

I was born in Chester, Pa, where the majority of people are black, until I was eight years old. While I was there, I attended private school about 20 minutes away, and  I can clearly remember when I had birthday parties or invited classmates over, some of their parents wouldn't let them come over. My parents explained to me that although we were in fact safe, many people believed that our neighborhood was dangerous, which

always baffled me, because I'd never had a reason to believe that it was dangerous. I always heard plenty of sirens and knew there were supposed "bad" sections of the city, but that was all very abstract to me. When I was eight years old, we moved about 15 minutes away to the more affluent and demographically white suburbs. Despite the close proximity between the suburbs and the city, the conditions of living are vastly superior and there is minimal interaction with or acknowledgement of Chester. When my new classmates talked about the city, it was usually to remark that you might get shot if you went there and when I told them that I used to live there, I was usually met with disbelief. For the majority of my schooling, when racism and race differences were mentioned it was usually the white washed history, in which slavery was emphasized and the civil rights movement was superficially covered.We were taught that Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream and that dream came true. Racism was approached as an individual moral problem and it wasn't until later in high school that we discussed racism as a system and ideology. Subtle racism was was definitely all around us, but never acknowledged unless it was expressed in an overt way. 

I found the first chapter of the book really interesting, because so often race is accepted as a logical, concrete thing. We don't often interrogate our language and how it structures every day social interactions. What's more, although race is an invention with inconsistencies in terms of who fits what category globally, it still has a very real impact in terms of power relations and social goods. I thought it related well to what we briefly talked about in class, when we touched on how Irish and Italians were originally discriminated when they began emigrating to the United States, until they were eventually assimilated into the "white" category. It seems that humans always desire to partition the world around them, particularly when it comes to the concept of us vs. them in order to validate their particular way of life.