Oddly enough, I don’t mind so much pointing out “disparities”. Racial disparities often uncover situations where the less affluent in general, not just POCs, have been put at a disadvantage.
And, the majority of POCs in America are not black, and some that are are not descended from slaves but from more recent immigrants from Africa, so they have quite a different culture. Imagine what these people might think of “reparations” for just one of the many POC groups that we have.
Cogent, useful analysis. But, beyond the cashers-in and cynics who are exploiting this debate, there are many, many well meaning, unsophisticated activist/do-gooder types who believe explicit repentance is the right thing to do. As in many areas, they do not focus on what works or accomplishes policy objectives, but only what they would say is the ethical approach.
This is a good and thoughtful piece. However, I suspect you will lose some of your audience by the binary framing. Judging from the comments on many articles I’ve read, there are a great, great many people who are critical of the non-rationalism of the Woke set who do not deny racism. I guess these folks would follow the “third way” Yglesias is advocating. However, the article and the quote it uses are highly dismissive the genuine diversity of thought of whites and non-whites on issues of race. And the notion that people other than Yglesias arrived at their own views through reflection and logic rather than emotional self-preservation.
I'm not sure exactly how this fits, but It also seems harmful to disguise an effort to affirmatively act as something else. It can make actual race neutral efforts suspect.
"decades after officially ending that system, significant and obvious racial gaps in material resources and other outcomes. This, Bright argues, creates an inevitable tension: there’s a big gap between the country’s official status as a non-racist society and what everyone can see in practice."
Slightly tangential, but I lived in rural-ish Kansas for most of my life before exploring the rest of the country.
"...what everyone can see in practice" is something that not everyone sees.
In my experience, you see it mostly in cities. You see white people in expensive-looking clothes ordering Starbucks from people of color behind the counter. You see white people waiting in line at a stylish restaurant or walking to work, and you see people of color doing construction on the pavement nearby.
Whereas in the small-ish, rural-ish, college town that I grew up in, you see mostly white people doing both the ordering and the preparation of the Starbucks coffee.
Some rhetoric relating to race is genuinely confusing (and suspicious) to white people outside of big cities.
I wonder if that's because urban white people have an intuitive understanding of certain terms ("equity" or "systemic racism") that rural whites do not. To urban whites, "systemic racism" is a perfect way to express something they felt all along, just beneath the surface.
But rural whites never felt that--at least, not to the same degree. When urban whites try to explain "systemic racism" (now trying to articulate a meaning for a term rather than the other way around,) they typically struggle. And that just fuels more suspicion on the part of rural whites.
I hate traffic cameras and it's not because they don't racially discriminate: it's because my experience with them is as a dirty money-grab. There's a speedway that crosses a (city? county? I don't fully understand the political structure here) line near me. On it there are no red lights, the speed limit is 45, and very few places to merge and exit. But when you cross the line, the conditions don't change, but the speed limit drops to 35, and there are traffic cameras every couple minutes.
This does not feel like a public safety measure. This feels like a way to take money from people who didn't notice the speed limit went down by ten. And it's infuriating.
You know where there aren't any traffic cameras though? The residential and mixed-use areas near this road, where someone speeding could actually hit a pedestrian.
Just writing in to say - most of your posts I agree with, and I nod with approval. A few posts, I disagree with and I shake my head with disappointment. This was the first post that has given me a completely different way of looking at an issue, one I had simply never considered before. That sort of insight is rare and precious. Thank you and bravo.
What bothers me most about viewing everything with a racial lens, it is that it presumes that everybody sees themselves, first and foremost, as a member of their racial group, and is concerned about the group over the individual.
In reality, that way of thinking doesn't really pass the smell test. Everybody wants to be rich, but a poor white person gains nothing from knowing that they share the skin color of most rich people, nor does a poor black person who didn't go to college gain anything from the cancelling of student debt, simply because most of the cancelled debt would go to other black people.
Now, of course, racism does still exist, and people being intentionally held back because of their race should not be tolerated, but using affirmative action to "compensate" for such racial incidents doesn't work because a harm to person A doesn't get erased by a benefit to person B, just because A and B share a common skin color, even if aggregate statistics might seem to suggest so.
It's weird to me because internationally racial attitudes are often worse. Many of the people we welcome here in a cosmopolitan attitude are more on average more racist. My boss is African, hates the racism here but says the ethnic issues are worse where he was born.
I would argue both that Americans are more racist than they let on, but at a very typical human level. I think we can discuss racial bias and raise awareness without without the white specific framing. I think "rational racism" needs to be confronted; when you interact with a black stranger there are a whole list of things which are more likely to be true based on stats. Black men spend disproportionally more on status indicators (cars and clothing) to offset the low income stereotype. This sort of thing is both rational, self perpetuating and fundamentally evil/racist/classist when acted upon. I feel it's more compelling to understand the logics of racism and rebut them then to burn strawmen
Totally agree. If you spend time in other parts of the world you'll quickly find that the US is one of the most racially egalitarian places on the planet - despite our history and continuing issues and disparities.
It's a reason people want to come here and sometime die trying.
Knew a Swedish person with an adopted African brother raised in Sweden, so he spoke perfect Swedish. I was told her brother basically couldn't get into a nightclub in Sweden to save his life when they were growing up. Maybe it has changed now.
Per Matt's summary of Bright, "[Repressers] acknowledge the country’s history of racism as well as our huge racial disparities in outcomes, but they maintain that this is just an odd coincidence."
Is there *anyone* who would describe racial disparities in outcomes as "just an odd coincidence"? It seems intellectually dishonest to claim so. I personally strongly suspect most "Represessers" view present racial disparities in outcomes as largely or even mostly the consequence of past racial discrimination, they just think removal of active repression is sufficient and that trying to implement efforts to fix past injustices -- especially when we're talking about multi-generational time gaps -- will just create new ones. It's why I would, for example, support some sort of reparations program for people denied loans under redlining programs (if they are still alive) or their first generation heirs (if the original borrowers are deceased), but would oppose reparations for slavery.
Yes, Repressers don't "maintain that this [disparities in outcomes] is just an odd coincidence," they would probably say that it's partly the aftereffects of past discrimination and partly (although they would never say it out loud in company) the effects of culture.
Or to get Biblical about it, Jesus and the prophets advocated for ALL the poor and ALL the widows and orphans.
Oddly enough, I don’t mind so much pointing out “disparities”. Racial disparities often uncover situations where the less affluent in general, not just POCs, have been put at a disadvantage.
And, the majority of POCs in America are not black, and some that are are not descended from slaves but from more recent immigrants from Africa, so they have quite a different culture. Imagine what these people might think of “reparations” for just one of the many POC groups that we have.
Agreed. Thanks for articulating this position. You've helped me better understand and articulate my own, half-baked version of this line of thinking.
Cogent, useful analysis. But, beyond the cashers-in and cynics who are exploiting this debate, there are many, many well meaning, unsophisticated activist/do-gooder types who believe explicit repentance is the right thing to do. As in many areas, they do not focus on what works or accomplishes policy objectives, but only what they would say is the ethical approach.
This is the much bigger problem.
This is a good and thoughtful piece. However, I suspect you will lose some of your audience by the binary framing. Judging from the comments on many articles I’ve read, there are a great, great many people who are critical of the non-rationalism of the Woke set who do not deny racism. I guess these folks would follow the “third way” Yglesias is advocating. However, the article and the quote it uses are highly dismissive the genuine diversity of thought of whites and non-whites on issues of race. And the notion that people other than Yglesias arrived at their own views through reflection and logic rather than emotional self-preservation.
"..many of the people she speaks to who are most agitated about crime also hate traffic cameras."
I love this observation. It's been mine for years.
While I'm not sure I agree it really commonly had a racial aspect to it, "rules for thee, not for me" is so so common a theme in libertarian America.
Thank you for continuing to point this out!
I'm not sure exactly how this fits, but It also seems harmful to disguise an effort to affirmatively act as something else. It can make actual race neutral efforts suspect.
"decades after officially ending that system, significant and obvious racial gaps in material resources and other outcomes. This, Bright argues, creates an inevitable tension: there’s a big gap between the country’s official status as a non-racist society and what everyone can see in practice."
Slightly tangential, but I lived in rural-ish Kansas for most of my life before exploring the rest of the country.
"...what everyone can see in practice" is something that not everyone sees.
In my experience, you see it mostly in cities. You see white people in expensive-looking clothes ordering Starbucks from people of color behind the counter. You see white people waiting in line at a stylish restaurant or walking to work, and you see people of color doing construction on the pavement nearby.
Whereas in the small-ish, rural-ish, college town that I grew up in, you see mostly white people doing both the ordering and the preparation of the Starbucks coffee.
Some rhetoric relating to race is genuinely confusing (and suspicious) to white people outside of big cities.
I wonder if that's because urban white people have an intuitive understanding of certain terms ("equity" or "systemic racism") that rural whites do not. To urban whites, "systemic racism" is a perfect way to express something they felt all along, just beneath the surface.
But rural whites never felt that--at least, not to the same degree. When urban whites try to explain "systemic racism" (now trying to articulate a meaning for a term rather than the other way around,) they typically struggle. And that just fuels more suspicion on the part of rural whites.
Perhaps the most important take for progressives I've read in the 2020s.
Nice job, Matt.
I hate traffic cameras and it's not because they don't racially discriminate: it's because my experience with them is as a dirty money-grab. There's a speedway that crosses a (city? county? I don't fully understand the political structure here) line near me. On it there are no red lights, the speed limit is 45, and very few places to merge and exit. But when you cross the line, the conditions don't change, but the speed limit drops to 35, and there are traffic cameras every couple minutes.
This does not feel like a public safety measure. This feels like a way to take money from people who didn't notice the speed limit went down by ten. And it's infuriating.
You know where there aren't any traffic cameras though? The residential and mixed-use areas near this road, where someone speeding could actually hit a pedestrian.
Just writing in to say - most of your posts I agree with, and I nod with approval. A few posts, I disagree with and I shake my head with disappointment. This was the first post that has given me a completely different way of looking at an issue, one I had simply never considered before. That sort of insight is rare and precious. Thank you and bravo.
What bothers me most about viewing everything with a racial lens, it is that it presumes that everybody sees themselves, first and foremost, as a member of their racial group, and is concerned about the group over the individual.
In reality, that way of thinking doesn't really pass the smell test. Everybody wants to be rich, but a poor white person gains nothing from knowing that they share the skin color of most rich people, nor does a poor black person who didn't go to college gain anything from the cancelling of student debt, simply because most of the cancelled debt would go to other black people.
Now, of course, racism does still exist, and people being intentionally held back because of their race should not be tolerated, but using affirmative action to "compensate" for such racial incidents doesn't work because a harm to person A doesn't get erased by a benefit to person B, just because A and B share a common skin color, even if aggregate statistics might seem to suggest so.
It's weird to me because internationally racial attitudes are often worse. Many of the people we welcome here in a cosmopolitan attitude are more on average more racist. My boss is African, hates the racism here but says the ethnic issues are worse where he was born.
I would argue both that Americans are more racist than they let on, but at a very typical human level. I think we can discuss racial bias and raise awareness without without the white specific framing. I think "rational racism" needs to be confronted; when you interact with a black stranger there are a whole list of things which are more likely to be true based on stats. Black men spend disproportionally more on status indicators (cars and clothing) to offset the low income stereotype. This sort of thing is both rational, self perpetuating and fundamentally evil/racist/classist when acted upon. I feel it's more compelling to understand the logics of racism and rebut them then to burn strawmen
Totally agree. If you spend time in other parts of the world you'll quickly find that the US is one of the most racially egalitarian places on the planet - despite our history and continuing issues and disparities.
It's a reason people want to come here and sometime die trying.
Knew a Swedish person with an adopted African brother raised in Sweden, so he spoke perfect Swedish. I was told her brother basically couldn't get into a nightclub in Sweden to save his life when they were growing up. Maybe it has changed now.
Per Matt's summary of Bright, "[Repressers] acknowledge the country’s history of racism as well as our huge racial disparities in outcomes, but they maintain that this is just an odd coincidence."
Is there *anyone* who would describe racial disparities in outcomes as "just an odd coincidence"? It seems intellectually dishonest to claim so. I personally strongly suspect most "Represessers" view present racial disparities in outcomes as largely or even mostly the consequence of past racial discrimination, they just think removal of active repression is sufficient and that trying to implement efforts to fix past injustices -- especially when we're talking about multi-generational time gaps -- will just create new ones. It's why I would, for example, support some sort of reparations program for people denied loans under redlining programs (if they are still alive) or their first generation heirs (if the original borrowers are deceased), but would oppose reparations for slavery.
Yes, Repressers don't "maintain that this [disparities in outcomes] is just an odd coincidence," they would probably say that it's partly the aftereffects of past discrimination and partly (although they would never say it out loud in company) the effects of culture.