• http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Postmodern_Blackness_18270.html

On Listening

• http://xroads.virginia.edu/~public/civilrights/a0146.html
• https://www.academia.edu/5150611/Whats_in_a_name
• http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/politics/31obama.html
• http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/racially-profiled-in-palm-beach/278047/
• http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/world-ferguson
• http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXv2Pjtc3Zk

For this reason, our dialogue on white supremacy in America in some ways rang hollow to me. As a Georgetown University alumnus I am more than familiar with the elitist thought prevalent in America. But even the boat shoe-wearing prep school grads knew the value of “diversity”; it was only poor whites left subject to candid scorn, left out of any conversation of class in America, left with one of the few openly derogatory names left in American society: "white trash."

It's not clear to me why the existence of poverty among working-class white people makes discussion of white supremacy ring hollow to you. One of white supremacy's most important social outcomes is the prevention of working class solidarity. Hence the long relationship between and the struggles for civil rights and by working class people to confront the oppression of owners, from perspectives as different in other respects as those of Andrew and Lyndon Baines Johnson, the American Communist Party, and Henry Wallace.

What has this test to do with the presence of the ideology of white supremacy? And what does that second, run-on sentence actually mean?

Aside from the presentation of an isolated statistic, what was the point of this digression, which takes up one quarter of the maximum length of a draft? Are we actually inquiring whether the economic consequences of four hundred years of white supremacy are visible?

And would it not be correct to say that we have two national parties, one of which takes exactly that position and primarily appeals to white people, becoming in fact whiter all the time, such that in current polling the national presidential candidate of this party (which once supported equal civil rights in the US) now receives actually 0% support from likely black voters?

I don't understand the concept of "likely to give," or how you measure it. African-Americans have been earnest strivers for their place at the American table from the moment they began living in this land. They have taken advantage of all the opportunities for education and advancement that white people were willing to allow them. They have fought our wars, built our infrastructure (including our schools), attended every form of educational institution that would admit them, created and operated every form of business, and provided every kind of leadership to which they were permitted to aspire. Their reward has been oppression and poverty, by and large, but that hasn't stopped them from trying.

What are those categories, and how are they different? Why are "Hispanics" sort-of white people, but Jews are just plain "white"? And what of a Jewish person whose ancestors emigrated from Spain to Mexico in the sixteenth century, then pretended to be Catholic for four hundred years, and who has now moved to Kansas and resumed attending shul? Is this person "white," only "Hispanic-white," or something else?

You don't need footnotes on web pages, but if you want to make them, use TWiki footnote markup to make it easy for the reader. I've modified one note to show you how.

So what is the central idea of the essay, after all? The present draft is a tangle of data and allusions without a clear path or a definite statement of its animating central idea. Some grafs seem to argue that there isn't white supremacy in the US, because some black people are richer or better socially placed than some white people. Some grafs seem to accept the reality of white supremacy as a political and social ideology crucial to the development of the United States, but to be arguing that class divisions are (or should be) more important than racial ones, for political or policy purposes largely undiscussed.

What we need is a clear statement, at front, of the idea you wish to convey to the reader, followed by a development of your evidence or support for that idea, arriving at a conclusion which reaches beyond the idea itself to its implications for the reader's further consideration. An outline that actually delineates the steps in that process would be a very productive place to start.

On "White Supremacy"

Introduction

Median household income: $45,915.* Per capita income: $22,414. Just a tick above Brooklyn’s median and lower than New York's second-poorest borough per capita stands my hometown of Bath, Pennsylvania. A place where thrift stores are for more than ironic sweaters (suits, housewares, furniture), where a “new car” is always used, where the one remodeled house downtown sticks out like a sore thumb. Where the high school sent six students to the Ivy League (one for athletics) from my brother’s class ten years ahead of me, through my graduation in 2007, to today; where the school is more worried about counseling students who bring guns to school than students who don’t know if going to college is right for them; where residents lobbied for years against building a new school to accommodate a population nearly double the size the school was first built for (they ultimately settled for renovations – the capacity of which has been already surpassed by the growing student body). Where the population is 98% white.

For this, our dialogue on white supremacy in America in some ways rang hollow to me. As a Georgetown University alumnus I am more than familiar with the elitist thought prevalent in America. But even the boat shoe-wearing prep school grads knew the value of “diversity”; it was only poor whites left subject to candid scorn, left out of any conversation of class in America, left with the only openly derogatory name in American society: white trash. That white trash includes the kids I played sports with as a child and to whose family’s mobile home I retreated after the game. The high school students who, if they decided to limp through high school, now have jobs at Arby’s alongside teenagers from nearby, more affluent areas. Today, some of the 20,437, 539 adults – 6.9% of America – both white and below the poverty line.**

Digging Deeper

Of course it would be pandering to my own preconceptions to end there. The existence of poor whites does not, in and of itself, undermine white supremacy, nor does the very fact that so many white people are subject to the derogation and subjugation of the white ruling class. 24,140,297 people are nonwhite and below the poverty line – totaling 8.2% of America. Using race as denominator, 23.8% of nonwhites are below the poverty line compared to just 10.6% of whites. Such denominators do not do enough work to undermine my first notion. The fact remains that absolutely there are nearly as many poor whites as poor nonwhites – should whiteness be supreme, the numbers should be far from comparable; the nonwhite class includes many immigrants or recent immigrants as well as those recovering from the history of slavery and segregation (a relic of overt white supremacy, to be sure, but that supremacy need not continue for the imposed subjugation suffered to have ramifications on wealth that have lasted forty more years).

However, figures from Tom Hertz for the Center for American Progress cut against this interpretation of census data. In particular, Hertz finds two figures relating to social mobility and race in the United States: (1) 62.9% of blacks born in the bottom quartile between 1942 and 1972 stayed there (as compared to just 32.3% of whites) and (2) controlling for many human capital measures, being black had a negative, statistically significant correlation for social mobility for children born in the same time period.***

To be fair, the data is not current – the oldest of those children were entering the workforce just as the Civil Rights Act was passing and the youngest not long after the first Bush left office – but social mobility does not lend itself to of-the-moment analysis and nearly all of the children in the sample reached adulthood after 1965. This support for white supremacy must coexist with the fact that the oh-so-supreme whiteness I encountered at Georgetown was substantially at odds with the humble whiteness I grew up knowing (and which 7% of America continues to know very well). In response to this, I suggest specifying the conception of white supremacy in the following way: rather than elite whites having a preference for those with white skin, elites having a preference for those like them – which, because of America’s history, means those who act like the wealthy white people who so long have run this country.

Clarifying “White Supremacy”

Facially obvious to support this definition are many aspects of “diversity” in America. Although affirmative action programs began as government-mandated measures, today they are not only voluntarily engaged-in programs by employers and universities but are also points of pride and part of marketing pitches. If the supreme culture that runs these organizations – from educational bastions of conformity like Columbia Law to capitalist machines like Goldman Sachs – was so concerned with skin color it would instead view affirmative action programs as an occupation, a forced measure getting in the way of its preferences.

But while the culture embraces nonwhites, women, and the LGBT community, it has little interest in these peoples’ unique perspectives – it simply wants a new face on the same worldview. In 2004 Henry Louis Gates commented how the majority of Harvard’s black population was African or West Indian (I needn’t point out that our black president is half-white half-Kenyan); women can only be unprofessional or bossy in the work place; our most prominent Hispanic politician opposes the DREAM Act. The attitude of diversity is more “okay, we’ll let you act like us” than “we’re interested in how you are.” A subgroup with a culture and history of its own embedded so far in its collective memory – as African-Americans have – is the least likely to give. And the least likely to get much accommodation in return.

What makes poor whites “trash,” then, is that they don’t take advantage of what’s been handed to them. They’ve been allowed all this time to be one of elite class but haven’t put down their hunting rifles and Kid Rock CDs long enough to do so. But poor whites with no motivation to leave their community – poor whites who are raised to look at the supreme culture as an enemy, not a community easily joined – have much in common with the nonwhite groups struggling against the supreme culture. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Kid Rock has a collaboration with Ludacris.

*All data pulled from the U.S. Census Bureau’s “American Factfinder” website.

**”White” in this context – and all references to whites throughout the paper – excludes Hispanics and Latinos.

***Hertz does not find any statistically significant, controlled data that supports a conclusion that other nonwhites have a more difficult time with social mobility, hence my change in vocabulary from “nonwhite” to “black” when discussing Hertz’ figures and, thus, the rest of the essay.

-- MatthewCollins - 20 Apr 2012