Exaggerating racism
The failure of the Western intellectual, black and white
I came across an article in the Washington Post that noted an interesting fact. In 1969, among young college-educated males, the median salary of “non-Whites” was 98% that of whites, up from eighty percent ten years earlier.
The approximate parity between young male college-educated blacks and whites indicates a low level of racial discrimination in the aftermath of the significant racial reforms of the period 1954 to 1965. Such an interpretation is consistent with my personal experiences of the time. It seemed to me clearly evident that events in Montgomery and Birmingham, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech”, and the clear pronouncements on the issue by two American presidents had stimulated a sea change in white attitudes, particularly among white youth and whites in positions of authority in institutions in various sectors. By the end of the 1960s, the great majority of whites were either committed to or accepting of a more just and democratic society with respect to race.
No one doubts that there was significant and sometimes cruel racial discrimination in the USA prior to 1965, and there are various historical, political, economic, and social explanations of the phenomenon, which should not be treated with superficiality. But the question we need to address with clarity is the following: To what extent has the nation continued to practice racial discrimination since 1965? This question has been put before the nation by those who claim that “systemic racism” is an enduring characteristic of American society.
In addressing this question, simple comparisons of income between blacks and whites are not helpful. Such an approach exaggerates the level of white racism, because it leaves aside various other factors that are much more powerful explanations of racial income inequality.
One of these other factors was the continuing effects of pre-1965 patterns of discrimination, which had created separate black communities in cities across the nation. These communities were characterized by a relatively small but socially important educated middle class; a large lower class with limited economic and educational resources, and with a culture that included certain elements that were dysfunctional for educational attainment; and low levels of community ownership and capital. This situation made evident the need for the economic and cultural development of the black community, led by black community leaders, with the support of white society in the form of capital for economic development.
The need for black community development was announced by black leaders in the late 1960s, especially those with a black nationalist orientation, who envisioned a central role for black leaders, entrepreneurs, and educators. But a long-term commitment to the project was lacking. The out-migration by the black middle class from the traditional black areas emerged as an impacting phenomenon which, accompanied by white migration to suburban areas, led to the establishment of separate black middle-class communities. The social consequence was that the traditional black area became a socially isolated sector with high levels of social disorganization; and in the absence of persistent and practical demands for black community development, white society fell into indifference.
At the same time, economic and political developments did not favor the poor, black or white. The manual labor that had driven the previous economic development of the nation was less and less in demand, and the government had no economic policy of sufficient scale that was designed to address the problem, through the creation of manual jobs as well as programs to promote educational attainment.
Taking into account such economic and political dynamics, it can be seen that there are various explanations for persistent differences in levels of income between blacks and whites, other than white racism. Falsely presenting white racism as anything more than a secondary source of the problem undercuts potential national and community efforts to address the primary sources of racial income inequality.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that affirmative action is a wrongheaded approach to attaining racial inequality. It focuses on including individuals rather than on community development. It uses the crude measure of race to identify those individuals who ought to be considered preferentially, thus giving an advantage to black middle-class individuals not necessarily in need. And because of these limitations, evident to all, it generates resentment among whites, particularly with the passing of time, with the gradual economic decline of the nation, and with the absence of significant policies with respect to the needs of the working and lower classes. Moreover, it signals to black youth that their race, rather than their personal determination, is the key to their lifetime advancements.
Coleman Hughes is among a new wave of black conservative intellectuals that has emerged in response to recent ideological developments, and he is the author of a new book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. In an interview with Yascha Mounk in Persuasion, Hughes observes that exaggerating racism has negative consequences for people of color, in that it can limit their aspirations. Mounk concurs with Hughes’ observation, noting that “we need to be realistic and accurate in how we perceive the world,” and that there are “costs in underestimating how much progress we’ve made.”
In my view, the exaggeration of racism has emerged as an important ideological tendency because it promotes the interests of certain particular actors. For the black middle class, the exaggeration functions to justify the continuation of the affirmative action policies from which it benefits, in a situation in which social and economic developments undermine affirmative action’s inherently weak justifications. For the white middle class, exaggerated self-denunciations of racism assuages guilt for having never profoundly analyzed and addressed the sources and solutions to racial income inequalities; and in a general sense, for having never sought to deepen understanding on the basis of personal encounter with the African-American movement. And at the same time, exaggerated racism provides new jobs in student affairs in a stagnant academic market.
But there are very bad consequences of exaggerating white racism, as Hughes argues. I would give emphasis to the fact that it distorts the truth. Anyone who seeks structural and significant social change must speak the truth to the people, because the people sense when the truth is not being told. Because of the perceptive capacities of the people, only truthtellers are able to attain a sufficient following necessary for the construction of societal consensus. When truthtellers are not present, various competing ideas based on half-truths and manipulations abound, leading to the division and deepening the confusion of the people.
At the present time, the USA is profoundly divided over several issues, one of which is race. We are incapable of resolving the issues that are at stake in public debate, and this occurs in a time of multidimensional crises in the nation and the world. The nation is in urgent need of truthtelling.
In Cuba, where attention to truthtelling is the norm, I recently came across in social media some reflections by Fidel on Marx, remembered in commemoration of the anniversary of the death of the great German philosopher. We recalled that Fidel exhorted revolutionaries to follow the example of Marx and to study, to study and to teach, and to get to the depth of things. Without understanding in depth, no practical problem can be resolved. Study, continuous study seeking in-depth understanding, is the duty of all revolutionaries and all who seek a more just society, says Fidel.
Western intellectuals, black and white, have failed in this duty of study seeking in-depth understanding. I refer to intellectuals in the West, regardless of race or ethnicity, including many born in the nations of the Third World, who live in the Western world and have internalized its epistemological assumptions and fundamental concepts. The Western Left has been captured by the superficial exaggeration of racism, leaving insufficiently addressed the key issues of our historic moment: the enduring neocolonial structures of the world-system; the continuous imperialist policies of the Western powers and the worldwide anti-imperialist struggle; the persistence of world poverty and underdevelopment; the ignoring of calls for peace and cooperation from the Third World plus China; the inattention of Western political establishments to the productivity of their national economies and the world-economy; the inattention to the social and economic needs of the people in all regions of the world, regardless of race or ethnicity; and the control of the political process and public discourse by Western elites.
Cuba shows that an alternative road is possible. Cuba shows that the formulation of an alternative understanding, rooted in the vantage point of the colonized and developed through sustained study, is possible. Cuba shows that a vanguard can be formed, a vanguard with a grasp of the fundamental sources of the problems of the nation and the world, capable of leading the people toward the necessary road. Cuba has its imperfections, particularly in its economy, primarily a consequence of the fact that it is a small nation with limited resources under constant attack by the declining hegemonic power. But Cuba demonstrates that a leadership with understanding of the fundamentals can teach the people and construct a societal consensus.
I see two likely possibilities for the USA. On the one hand, we can continue on the road of confusion, ignorance, division, and decline; which likely would be accompanied by the continuing ascent of China and the Third World, who are seeking to construct a more sustainable world order. On the other hand, we can find our way again, and participate in the construction of a more sustainable world-system.
I say “again,” because the American republic once possessed a defined and consensual road. To be sure, nineteenth century America was full of shortcomings, reflecting human limitations in understanding and political practice of the time. But in comparison to the kingdoms and the feudal and tribal societies that prevailed in the world of that era, the USA had accomplished a breakthrough to a more advanced stage, even more so than Western Europe, which had less decisively broken with feudal political constraints. The United States was forging a new economy based on the unbridled economic exploitation of human labor and of nature, forging a more advanced stage of human productivity. This more advanced stage had its own contradictions, but the United States had its moment of greatness, from 1776 to 1945, when it led the world in forging a new stage of human productivity and interconnectivity.
The U.S. decline began in the post-World War II era, when it turned to the perfectioning of neocolonialism and imperialism, rather than toward leadership in the construction of a more sustainable world-system that was oriented toward transforming its colonial foundations. This was the historic moment of failure of the American leadership, which led to the decades-long relative economic decline and loss of prestige of the nation, accompanied by a national ideology that was out of sync with the emerging progressive economic and ideological tendencies in the world, led by China and the Third World, with Cuba representing an important moral force in the process.
The national sense of purpose can be renewed. We can belatedly recognize the significance of China, Cuba, and the Third World movement for the construction of a more just, sustainable, and post-imperialist world order. We can change direction, seeking a dignified participation in the construction of a new world order. And we would be able to do so with prestige, because in that emerging world, our social sins during the time of our ascent and hegemony have been forgiven, and our contribution to human advancement is remembered and appreciated.
Here we can see the great damage that has been done to the national psyche by the exaggerators. They have failed to understand our previous social sins in historical and global context. They have cast aside any effort to see positive contributions in our nation’s history, making impossible a new sense of national purpose, which would be rooted in the founding proclamation of the promise of democracy and in the nation’s subsequent evolution toward practical fulfillment of the founding promise.
As Fidel teaches, we must understand and explain. We must understand the need for an ideological reconstruction of the American public discourse, chasing the exaggerators from the scene. The ideological reconstruction must have three components. First, we must forge a persistent anti-imperialism, joining the Third World and China in the proclamation of a new and necessary world order based on cooperation rather than competition among imperialist powers. Secondly, we must fully embrace the modern democratic notion of the separation of religious matters from the state, recognizing religious and personal lifestyle questions as private matters; the state should support neither post-modern lifestyle options nor traditional religious beliefs, but should stand for tolerance, mutual respect, patient discussion, and non-violence among the people as they express their diverse lifestyle and religious views. Thirdly, we must forge a patriotic ideological reconstruction, emphasizing that our goal is the unification and renewal of our nation.
The ideological reconstruction must address the issue of immigration with scientific knowledge and political intelligence. The exaggerators simplistically portray opposition to unregulated immigration as a sign of racism. In fact, immigration is a very complex problem, because it influences the composition of the citizenry, and it can imply a change from one prevailing culture in the nation to another, which relates to the essence of the national identity.
The great migratory wave to the United States from Ireland and Eastern and Southern Europe during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries also provoked much consternation, even though the great majority of the migrants were defined as “white.” The great majority spoke various languages other than English, and the great majority were Catholics and Jews rather than Protestants.
The program adopted was called “Americanization,” which involved the acceptance by the immigrants of the prevailing American political culture as well as the intergenerational abandonment of their diverse languages. The development of their own religious institutions, which themselves sought a cooperative relation with the American political process and political establishment, was tolerated. This process was aided by favorable economic conditions, in that the expanding American economy needed manual laborers, which the immigrants provided. For this reason, immigration was open, with only immigrants with infectious diseases returned to their countries of origin. As a result of these dynamics, there was successful intergenerational economic and cultural integration of the immigrants from Ireland and Eastern and Southern Europe; too much so, in that most descendants of Irish, Italian, Polish, and German immigrants have forgotten their roots.
The Americanization model, with important modifications reflecting new conditions, ought to be the approach taken today, which could enable the reduction of division on the theme. In essence, the Americanization model involves the requirement that immigrants accept the American political culture and its embracing of republican and democratic principles. And it involves acceptance of the once prevailing interpretation of the nation’s history as a gradual expansion and deepening of the process of democracy, forged by social movements whose basic concepts ultimately were included in the American political culture. Americanization presumes affirmation of the Constitution of the United States, such that any proposed reformulation of American political practices ought to be sought through new laws and constitutional amendments, in accordance with juridical norms.
The Americanization of immigrants in the twenty-first century ought to be different from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in two ways, reflecting changed global and ideological conditions since the late 1960s. First, immigration today must be regulated, because the multidimensional crisis of the world-system has provoked an irregular migration that constitutes a threat to the security of all involved. All nations must cooperate in the fostering of a safe, secure, and regulated international migration, with the regulations effectively imposed on all who seek to migrate. This, incidentally, has been a persistent demand of Cuba. Secondly, taking into account the emergence of the concept of cultural pluralism in the late 1960s, Americanization in today’s manifestations does not involve the intergenerational abandonment of language or other cultural aspects. What would be envisioned is a nation with cultural differences among the people, but with common participation in the political culture and its interpretations and institutions, conducted in English as the official language, with all proposed reforms using legal and constitutional means.
If I, as the grandson of Irish immigrants, identify with the Irish nationalist anti-colonial struggle; and if I, on the basis of this identification, support the anti-colonial struggles of the Third World; and if I, therefore, believe that the United States ought to form a persistent anti-imperialist foreign policy; then I ought to pursue this conceptualization through the persistent education of the people and through legal and constitutionally established means. I should not demand compensation or expect preferential treatment because of what was done to my foreparents in nineteenth century Ireland. I should demand practical implementation of the Enlightenment and democratic principles that are the foundation of the American Republic, enabling me to explain under conditions of real equality my alternative vision with respect to the foreign policy of the nation, along with other interrelated issues.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.