07/13/2007 On Race

07/13/2007 On Race

The other day I am watching a democratic debate where the subjects are being asked about race relations. As the democrats fall all over themselves to pander to the growing minority voting block, I was alarmed to note that I had no opinion on the matter myself. So I thought about it.

First, let's not mince words. Racism still exists, and still plays a central role in the way we live our lives. Even many conservatives agree with this. It's true that racism in itself does not justify action anymore in the sense that Lincoln felt justified in trying to send all the slaves back to Africa. But there is a lot of racist action in our society that is not justified but rationalized. Radio stations, for example, play songs by artists who are the race and gender, if not the age, of their target audience; this robs artists of other races of opportunity. Police routinely profile by race, and we select mates often based on race, gender and age. Our political system features two parties: one designed for the sole purpose of channeling money and power towards one race, gender and age group (republican) and one that serves only the purpose of opposing the first (democrat). With the republicans operating for the benefit of one race above all others, our political system is therefore a racist battle. With America still trying to live down it's past, the party of the white male has expanded to include radio stations and cable channels that attempt, and often succeed, in setting the rhetoric for the public discourse. Meanwhile, racial minorities who are angered by their treatment of the past point out that no one has ever paid for being a slave owner or putting Japanese into camps during WWII.

And all of that, is, of course, illusion. Like the “Turn” in magic, we are not really looking to see past this act. While Gore was kept from the White House after being elected in 2000, Americans proved they would rather go back to their cell phones and video games than have to fight their government for their freedom. Excess leads to passivity and we are there, my friends. The current public circus is designed to make the citizens feel satisfied to listen to their political pundit tell them they're right and (maybe) vote, paying no attention to the consequences other than to insist that the country is better off for their having voted.

But tell me, what did 8 years of Clinton do to promote “racial equality” in America? Poet Maya Angelou called him an “honorary Black Man.” How were black people better off for Clinton? His main accomplishments were NAFTA, GATT, getting people off welfare, reducing the budget deficit. How does that help black people? The “V” chip? And for that matter, how has George W Bush helped white people? Granted, he didn't do much for black people during Katrina. But that's pretty thin. Are we saying that we have to elect a democrat because if one of the greatest disasters in history happens then a republican will let people die? Katrina was a blunder that most presidents wouldn't have allowed to happen on either side of the aisle. But after 8 years of “W”, aren't white conservatives more convinced than ever that the forces of political correctness are stacking the deck against them? Meanwhile, the Republican congress set a record for pork barrel spending and have brought a $128 Billion Dollar Surplus into Trillions worth of debt. After that crap blaming the Dems for raising taxes is like saying I-flicked-the-switch-but-I-am-not-responsible-for-the-light-going-on.

Bush's plan to help defray the cost of health insurance was sure to draw the ire of the insurance industry, had anyone taken it seriously. And after years of deregulation, the Bush administration had to come down hard on Enron, tying companies up in millions of dollars of Red Tape just to make an IPO in this country. When we really look behind the rhetoric to action, who really stands for anything at all? No one.

So what, then, of racial relations in America? An afterthought. A misdirection. As so many black people feel that Bush and the government is plotting to exterminate them, the white people are equally convinced that Hollywood and the politically correct Democrats are doing the same to them.

What is the answer, then? How to achieve equal opportunity in this atmosphere? The answer is not a simple one. When one group of people do wrong to another, the former never choose to hold themselves responsible. It is on black people to hold white people responsible for the past; that's not right, but it's reality. But that's unlikely to happen, because the anger they hold is based as much on fear as the past. The proof of this is that whenever that anger comes out, it usually is aimed at someone of the same race. With no one to hold white people responsible, there is no one to keep them from being exploited by opportunists who tell them that their lives are hard, not because their values or outlook need changing, but because they aren't being given a fair deal.

So with this quagmire firmly established, can America ever accommodate racial equality? And if we ever have it, will we know it? The answer to the latter question is certainly not. The masses will be exploited by someone stoking their anger by preying on their self-interest and justifying their fears and desires. Our pundits need only adhere to the minimal requirements of social proof and collect their checks. That's why so many of those in public life are dullards.

But then, how do we move towards racial equality? Do we really want to? While conservatives tout capitalism and free enterprise as rewarding innovation and hard work, social networking remains an essential skill in increasing income. Furthermore, most people are content to live the “normal” life, that of having a family and raising children. Most people play it safe, going for a good job and trying to keep it. Few of us take chances and use our full creativity in founding new sources of income. This tendency means that equal effort, or lack thereof, on the part of both races will not move us closer to equality but rather exaggerate whatever advantage already exists.

The humanist's ideal is that the person who can best do the job should be given the job. But isn't part of a job getting along with your employees? If you are perceived differently because of your race, and you are, then doesn't that basically mean that race plays a role in determining how well you do your job, regardless of how many widgets you produce?

So a government in America then faces the challenge of pursuing a goal that is ethical but defined differently according to race, class and political affiliation, and may not have anything in our “shared reality” that can be used to unite the warring ideas. Government has no choice but to pursue this goal because it is ethical, yet the only course of action is to “rob Peter to pay Paul”, always serving one and alienating others.

Since all of this is just a function of imagination, the only progress towards our goal as a nation can be to tear down much of the mental framework surrounding it. That doesn't mean trying to prevent people from believing and acting in their own best interest; that is natural and overall even healthy. No, what that means, first and foremost, is the myth of education.

It seems that in all quarters, people think that education will solve our troubles. That is despite the fact that we are more educated than ever and our troubles are as bad as they have been in decades, especially in matters of race. Education will not uplift us out of poverty, and may in fact make the situation worse. Higher education today is largely a function of racism in itself. While the concept of education being central to the humanist's belief in knowledge being available to the masses and necessary for a functional democracy, today's education only thinly justifies itself in those terms. No, today's education is primarily a way of shifting responsibility for job training off of corporations and employers in general and onto the individual. A degree generally entails plenty of time and effort aimed at classes and activities that have nothing to do with the job being offered. One who attends a trade school may have put in more time and gathered more knowledge and experience towards the job, yet he will see fewer options and command less pay. There is no question as to why that is: the performance is not what is important but the social status that the degree indicates. Most graduates come from higher income families. The higher the degree, the more likely you are to sift out people on the basis of income and race. Putting more emphasis on trade schools will bring job skills to more people, which is counter to the point. And the rising costs of tuition helps this process along nicely.

No, racism is not ignorance. Our blood may all be the same, but the color of our skin is not the only factor determined by race. Racial differences extend to other factors such as facial features, hormone levels, susceptibility to certain diseases. And try as they may, behaviorists consistently find a racial hierarchy in educational achievement no matter how they try to adjust for racism. Perhaps racism cannot be measured. But as the tenants of behaviorism begin to fall and as we become more and more aware that people tend to cling to that knowledge which supports preexisting ideas, and we realize that education is no cure-all for race troubles in America. It's precisely the opposite.

While the conservatives view of race involves the dominant race being so despite the obstacle of racism is so wrong as to be cartoonish, they are correct in thinking that hopelessness is largely responsible for poverty. Many who blame their social status on their race, even in part, are being exploited by liberals who base a large part of their agendas on racial rhetoric, only to do nothing once in office. And much of that rhetoric centers on education as I have previously addressed.

Only by realizing that the largest part of overcoming racial prejudice in America is the ability to network with successful can we begin the process. Not with government do we see justice in this country. With more government involvement, the stakes are raised in the public rhetoric regarding both public policy and morals. In other words, if government intervention remains the sole instrument of balancing the racial scales, then people will have incentive to cloud the waters in politics in order to achieve positions of power and fan the flames of racism. In other words, the country is too “united” to allow a change of ethics from that which we are being dictated by those with professional agendas, national exposure, and ability to exploit our fears.

I would add that Newt Gingrich's idea that we send the National Guard into the inner cities to carry people out and place them elsewhere is a good idea. It seems cruel to us, but the attachment that a lot of people feel to neighborhoods and cities in which one's friends are dying by the day has to be compared somewhat to Stockholm Syndrome. It seems cruel and many would say it places the blame where it doesn't belong. But it's likely the only way things will ever change.

But with our federal government being more concerned with money and power than justice, we can never really have order. And the truth is that we miss the brutal justice dispensed by the tyrants of old. For the real problem here is moral, not financial. Those that are wronged by people who are more powerful than themselves often simply have to live with it. That is the tension between reality and the expectation of universal justice that originates with the advent of monotheism. It seems like ever since the hebrews invented God, we have been dealing with his absence. To those of you who believe in a compassionate God, and feel that his presence pervades our world, I ask: look around. Does the feeling of his presence really compare to the overwhelming pervasion of his absence?