NEXT UP: Part VII 
Joy-Ann Reid
"Discrimination Envy?" Post Date, June 8
Catch up and Catch on!
Parts I, III, and V of this series are on this blog.
1. ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL ATTACKS
2. NAME-CALLING OR FINGER-POINTING ARE PROHIBITED
3. READ COMMENT(S) THOROUGHLY BEFORE RESPONDING
4. STANDARD OPEN SALON RULES APPLY
5. VIOLATORS WILL BE TOWED
Noahvose 
Those in power shaped the history and circumstances of Native and African Americans. And the differences in their identities can be understood by tracing the government policies that pulled their strings. It’s quite simple, really. It all came down to resources…property. With the growing reliance of cotton in the South, and the desire for free labor, whites “needed” more slaves. Slave importation had already been made illegal, and so slave owners had to rely on domestic trade and natural reproduction. The One Drop Law simply provided a greater number of slaves (giving a different meaning to the saying “once you go black, you never go back”). For Native Americans, the desire by whites was different. They didn’t want the Indians; they wanted their land. The Allotment Act outlawed tribal ownership and divided reservations into family plots. Any land left over was sold to white speculators. Furthermore, treaties had promised permanent care for these wards of the nation. The answer, again, was simple. The desire for resources was the same, but they had to change the strategy to acquire it. Now, they would require Indians to meet a specific blood quantum in order to receive the plots of land and annuities. The notion was that after time, and after enough racial mixing, Indians would disappear. And so would their claim to the land.
Both strategies worked brilliantly. But what about the unintended consequences? Like a pebble in a pond, we’re still feeling the ripples.
These different racial policies resulted in two very different struggles. For blacks, the final goal has been inclusion. So long denied entrance into white society, African Americans marched, fought, and died for their right to integrate. For natives, it has been the opposite. Encouraged, then forced, to assimilate into white society, Native Americans, instead, fought for their right to remain separate and unique. In the book “Lakota Woman” Mary Crow Dog recounts her experiences in the 1970s as a member of the American Indian Movement. She puts it like this: “The blacks want what the whites have, which is understandable. They want in. We Indians want out!”
“If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. He put in your heart certain wishes and plans; in my heart he put other and different desires. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows.” –Sitting Bull
vs.
"I want to be the white man’s brother, not his brother-in-law." – Martin Luther King Jr.
The ambiguous treatment of these groups reached an almost comical level during WWII, if many of the results weren’t so tragic. Black troops were still segregated in the military. They were forced into all-black units, always commanded by a white officer. On the ships going to Europe, blacks were required to stay on the lowest decks near the engine room and weren’t allowed on the upper deck at the same time as whites, if at all. The French govt. even petitioned the U.S. to send black prostitutes for the war effort, to spare their white prostitutes from sleeping with black soldiers. On the other hand, despite repeated requests to have separate Native American units, natives were forced to integrate with white troops. The official policy predicted it would help them assimilate into the greater society when the war was over. However, if an Indian belonged to a tribe that was not yet federally recognized, he was placed in the all-black units (it’s usually here when my students finally laugh at the absurdity of this logic…they’ve looked behind the curtain, and they’re starting to get it.)
As a history teacher, I have wondered how much these policies have even affected how we are asked to teach our students. The Civil War lasted five years. The textbook my school uses dedicates three entire chapters to the war and the abolition of slavery, besides two additional sections in previous chapters that focus on the African American experience and condition in the South. The Indian Wars lasted approximately 25 years (if you believe the argument that the “Indian Wars” only started after the Civil War). In comparison, the textbook dedicates only 2 ½ pages in one section of a greater chapter called The Trans-Mississippi West. Why the difference? I believe the answer is easily understood, though very unintentional. We can look back at the Civil War and be proud that America, in the end, did what was morally right. Not so with the Indian Wars. They were always seen, and perhaps still are, as unpleasant…but necessary. There was no happy ending, no celebration of final justice. So, we grant it a small section…and move on.
I believe we can even see the effects of these racial policies in the identities of the average American, today. The truth is, blacks and whites have mixed more than any other two races in this country. Indians and whites have mixed the least. Yet, I’ve never heard anyone brag, “You know, I’m part black.” If they’re not telling me about their distant claim to Indian ancestry, then they’re telling me how they wish they had some. I am no exception, having always identified more with my mother’s ancestry than my father’s. Why? Because she is Cheyenne, and he is German; because most of us would rather identify with the oppressed than with the oppressor. And so I dance at pow wows rather than Octoberfest. There’s not the same “need” to claim African descent, because the right thing was eventually done (though not completed).
They pulled the strings, and we’re still dancing.
Well…at least they gave us mascots.
Black Versus White, or Why I’m
Lucky to be White
by
neilpaul Editor’s Pick
(First Posted, July 18, 2008)
(WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS THE 'N' WORD. IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT CONTROVERSY AT OPEN SALON INVOLVING THE USE OR MISUSE OF THIS TERM, OUR GROUND RULES FOR PARTICIPATING COMMENTS WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.)
3. READ COMMENT(S) THOROUGHLY BEFORE RESPONDING
4. STANDARD OPEN SALON RULES APPLY
5. VIOLATORS WILL BE TOWED
Would anyone care to hazard guesses as to my race and the race of pretty much all of my pre-Dorchester friends and acquaintances? Would anyone wish to guess the race of my client today? Come on now, it’s not that hard! The above alternate treatment I propose is the treatment that we “nice white people in the suburbs” have come to expect.
My client and his friends didn’t get the white treatment, they got the black treatment. (Please don’t tell me some lame anecdote about a white friend of yours who was treated equally shabbily, it’s a question of typicality and out-lying anecdotes are irrelevant to me.) My clients in the “community” (euphemism for “ghetto”) were treated like “African-Americans” (euphemism for “nigger”). Yes I said nigger.
You may feel offended when you read that word and I hope that you are offended, not by the word I use, but by the way these young men were abused by the system! We live in a Country, where progressive people stand still while millions of blacks are abused routinely due to their race, but we think we have made great progress because we no longer use the word “nigger.” Well, I’m here to say I don’t think that is much progress at all.
If anything, our use of more polite and progressive language has just provided us whites with a thin façade of decency while our mistreatment of blacks continues largely unabated. Many white people assume that their use of “African-American” plus their one black friend from college means that they are OK and have nothing to answer for with respect to racial discrimination in America. I’m going on the record saying FUCK THAT!
If anything it is more decent to name a group of people honestly in a way that reflects the way you are treating them. If the Nazis had used polite terms for German and Polish Jewry during WWII, it would not have made them better people, it would only have added shameful dishonesty to the list of their many sins. Likewise, when white Americans today use the term “African-American” to describe blacks, it doesn’t absolve us of any of the wrongs we have committed or continue to commit against black people. If we were to choose a term for black people in inner-cites that truly reflected the way they are regarded and treated, we would have to use the term “nigger.” If that makes us uncomfortable, then it sucks to be us, but that is how it is. We have no one to blame but ourselves; we made it that way.
If anything we should replace the de facto rule that we are obliged as whites to use the term “African-American” unless we are “cool” with a rule that you are not ALLOWED to use the term until you have personally done something to actually mitigate American racism. That way, the tiny number of white people who were allowed to use that term could be identified as truly interested in racial justice and the other 97% of us would have to honestly self-identify as offensive racists by using the term “nigger.”
Now I full well realize that I run the risk of alienating and upsetting my audience when I use the word nigger. I am willing to run that risk because the shock value of the word is vital to alienating my audience from its own complacency and upsetting people to the point where they might actually consider changing their ways. There is action to be taken right now by everyone reading this post.
At a minimum people can speak up loudly whenever they hear talk about how “those people” are lazy or dumb or crazy or criminal or irresponsible or anything else. Every time blacks are described that way, people should object loudly and vehemently. People need to be constantly reminded that crime rates are a product of how people are policed as much as how they act. For those interested in more than the minimum, local and vocal advocacy for racial fairness is important and easy to do.
Complain about differential arrest rates between races for crimes that are equally as prevalent among all races. Demand of your local and state officials that they explain or correct such injustices. This is only a start, but someone who does this consistently might plausibly use the term “African-American” because they will have tried to stop our wider society from treating black people as if they were niggers.
I could expand upon these themes for several more pages, but I want to wrap this up. I want to mention one more phenomenon and explain it before I quit.
Sometimes there is a murder or other serious crime in the ghetto and the cops run onto the scene and they can’t find any witnesses to crimes that happened in crowded streets in broad daylight. We often ascribe the reticence of the people on the scene to witness intimidation. That may very well be part of the problem, but not the whole problem.
A big part of “community” non-cooperation with the police is that people in the community hate the police. They don’t hate the police because they lack the “nice white suburban” gene that makes most of us cooperate with the police. They hate cops because they, and pretty much everyone they know, have been treated like shit by the cops at one point or another. Sometimes they had done real wrong, most times not, but the cops treated them like niggers just the same. That is why the people so often say “fuck you too” when the cops come around looking for help solving crime. Murders go unsolved behind this bullshit too.
My client today, not a bad kid, actually funny and polite, is a victim. He is a victim of differential justice and oppressive policing in the ghetto. The “minor” mistreatment he suffered is part of a much larger problem. It is an American problem. It is your problem. It truly falls to all the lucky people who don’t suffer racist abuses to solve it.
What are you going to do about it?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Delorys Welch-Tyson
Just Thinking...
Wren Dancer
Yvonne Shortt
Deborah Méndez-Wilson
bobbot
Salon.com
Comments
Neil, not a soul should chide you for your language.
"People need to be constantly reminded that crime rates are a product of how people are policed as much as how they act."
Crime is also a product of what is called a "culture of poverty". I did an experiment in class once when we're studying civil rights. I sent everyone home to study for a test. After taking it, I came in furious that all but one failed. I tell them we're going to take it again the next day and I expect everyone to take it seriously. Again, I come in angry that no one seems to be studying. It's amazing how fast the students quite studying all together. I use this as a general discussion of how groups of people quit when they see no hope or examples of success.
Great discussion. I'll check back later.
I would disagree with you on one point - white folks didn't actually do the right thing in the Civil War in the sense that it wasn't fought to free slaves but to preserve the Union. If it had been fought for the right reasons, institutionalized discrimination wouldn't be alive and well today.
NeilPaul, I greatly appreciate your calling white folks on our shit. That said, words do matter - I won't use the *N* word for any reason because it is so dehumanizing, just as I won't use the word slut or cunt to describe women, even to make a point in a political context. It is the ugly circumstances in which so many poor black folks are forced to live that is dehumanizing, the people themselves are still human - using that word does nothing to acknowledge this.
I work regularly with people (both youth and adults) who refuse to allow themselves to be mired in the ghetto ugliness in which the larger society, whether out of right wing hatred or liberal indifference, would force them to them live. These people refuse to be victims, they refuse to be classified. I have nothing but awe and admiration for their courage and integrity.
"It all came down to resources…property." This is a very interesting point. When resources are limited (or perceived to be so), competition is fierce. As our nation has become wealthier and there have been more resources to go around, we have become more inclusive, confident that "a rising tide lifts all boats."
And we've become self-righteous, judgmental of those who still harbor old prejudices, who still want to deny resources to members of other tribes and groups.
Are we really morally enlightened, or just rich? What happens when we feel less confident of our wealth?
This is why I believe a dialogue like this is so necessary. People of different background must communicate, or these two parallel universes will continue to exist, each unknown and unknowable to the other.
Thanks again for your insights and perspective. It's refreshing to hear from someone who takes a serious look at history and understanding it.
That's a great question. I can tell you from where I live there's a growing anger, almost hatred, toward "illegal immigrants". They are blamed for taking American jobs. CNN gives air to Lou Dobbs who rants about this. What amazes me most is that no one seems to be directing their anger at the white bosses who give immigrants these jobs so that they can pay them less than a living wage and do it under the table. People can't take jobs that aren't first offered to them. Yet, white America directs its anger first at the brown immigrant and spares its judgement of the white owner. interesting.
"English Spoken Here" signs are another manifestation.
I've noticed the increased scapegoating of Latinos as well; they are such an easy target when people look for someone to blame. "Our economy is going bad and we're helping them..." as if they are the cause of our economy going bad, not the export of jobs, not the billions poured into a war. I get this kind of email sent to me fairly frequently.
As for racial slurs...I heard several Blacks who came to Seattle from the south express in different ways the idea that while down south there was more outward racism, and some accepted it too easily, it was easier in a way because you knew just who and what you were dealing with. In Seattle it was "Hello Mr. Johnson, nice to meet you Mr. Johnson, oh sorry, the apartment was just rented out Mr. Johnson..." I believe that putting all our attention to word taboos, the P.C. approach, just masks the issue, replacing real awareness and independent thought with a formula of verboten words and subjects you can't mention, masking what we mean in increasingly obscure jargon. Leah DeLaria summed up P.C. mindset beautifully: "Why use one word when you can use twenty?"
The pattern is so pervasive throughout U.S. history that there simply is no room to address it all here. In a nutshell, if those on the bottom fight amongst each other, then they'll never wise up to the fact that they're all fighting over the same scraps. We blame the poor, illegal immigrant rather than vent our anger at the CEOs on the top. We bail out those on top and build a wall to keep out those on the bottom.
Ridiculous...but quite simple. And that's why people buy into it. Simple seems to win every time.
Paul - while I wrote some strong statements about your use of the n-word, I want to make sure that I realize I got your point - the idea that we - liberal white folks - need to stop feeling comfortable and face our own racism, and that we need to take responsibility to work for a much more just society. I really appreciate your discussion of differential arrest rates between races and your demand that we should all demand that officials correct such injustices.
First, beginning with your statement, "people were considered black if they had even one drop of African blood", we saw this during the last election when so many whites demanding to know why Obama was considered black. Um, because we made him so. The words "mulatto", "quadroon", octoroon, quintroon, hexadecaroon and mestee would not exist in the English language if we (white people) weren't out playing Tag, You're Black and finding any possible way to deny them rights and property.
Living literally a stone's throw from reservation lands and just a mile or so from their pueblo, your comments on the Native American desire to remain separate is profound in more ways than I had initially realized. I'm in a renovated adobe which dates to the late 1890s and the non-reservation area is all part of a Spanish Land Grant. Hispanic families have lived in these homes on this land for generations, since it was part of Mexico, yet there might as well be a wall between this and the reservation. The reasons you give ring a truth deeper than anything that had occurred to me before and I am grateful to you for shining a light there.
In my last blog, I had stated how I felt equal rights meant other groups receiving the same rights I take for granted every day without it ever entering into my consciousness. Neil Paul's beautiful post stated this perfectly and so much more. I also want to include how blacks make up 13-15% of all drug users yet 35% of all drug arrests. Add that to the fact that 14 states refuse to allow any ex-cons to vote (guess where most of those 14 states are located), and it's easy to see how this is a civil rights issue. In a nutshell, a recent study showed that 1.4 million black men are therefore not eligible to vote. In Alabama and Florida this makes up almost 1/3 of all black men in those states. I was going to start a blog about this. If you like, this is an article which argues how ex-cons should have the right to vote and is loaded with statistics:
http://www.ritesofpassage.org/df99-articles/ex-con.htm
Thank you so much for posting this. Rated.
I had been very vocal about the hate mail I was getting after my last two posts, including one which stated I should be raped by a black man. This speaks volumes, in part because the idea of being raped (by a non black) wasn't a bad enough fate for me. That writer had to add "by a black man" because, in his mind, that would be an even worse fate. I'm sure that it never occurred to him why he automatically assumed black is worse than white. I often think it's the blind hatred which is the hardest to fight.
vs.
"I want to be the white man’s brother, not his brother-in-law." – Martin Luther King Jr.
Noah, the distillation of the piece into the juxtaposition of these quotes is one of the most eloquent and masterful description of the distinction and contrast between the status and condition of peoples indigenous to North America and the Africans transported to the 'New World' I have ever seen or read.
The concept of a double holocaust perpetrated by white people in the name of things like "Manifest Destiny" and "White Man's Burden" etc. is chilling, to say the least. The fact that we are still mired in the lingering impact and effects these atrocities as quite starkly asserted by NeilPaul is disturbing.
The link between the essential elements of the two posts is undeniable. The proposition that the issues presented by them must be resolved for the betterment of all people is unassailable....
We are indeed fortunate to have these posts presented in tandem.
We are equally fortunate to be able to digest and comment on them in this way.....Kudos and thanks to both of you.
I want to thank everyone in general for taking my post in the spirit it was intended and respecting the context of my use of offensive language.
I will post some more specific comments replying to various commenters as soon as possible.
you make an understandable choice about the use of that term. In this post, I was making a specific point to a specific group of folks, complacent progressives. I sometimes regard polite language as serving the interests of the disinterested as much as the people described.
You make a good point about word's potential to do real damage and I will of course keep that in mind when making choices and check myself to be sure I am not creating a problem while trying to solve one.
Well-intentioned and benign misunderstanding is almost as corrosive as malign misunderstanding. Quite often (and I've done this myself) folks will advance a corrective agenda for the inner city that is based on myths about how the problems arose. For example, they urge that young people learn about "anger management" of all things to stop violence. This suggests that angry black men are perpetrating crime out of excess of emotion and for no other reason. I do not favor this approach.
Even when we think our hearts are in the right place, there is learning to be done. Learning politeness is a good first step. Actually understanding others is the next step.
I would also add that enforcing polite language rules and "coming down on someone" who openly expresses ignorance often just drives ignorance underground.
If the ignorant felt freer to express themselves then we could identify them and engage them in a dialog. There are good hearted enough folks out there who are just not well informed. The PC police really don't do much to remediate the problem by aggressively shaming the uninformed.
It appears that they believe that by curing themselves there is no need or obligation to go beyond that...Hence the; "I fixed me, so I don't need or want to hear what you have to say...Go fix yourself and leave me alone..." attitude and approach to racial harmony...
I think everyone who has ever been Black can relate to Neil's story, from his client's point of view. Even now, in the suburbs, when I've gotten pulled over by exceptionally rude (for no reason) police, I wonder, is it racial? Ditto when followed around a department store, or when a clerk looks past you to serve the customer standing behind you.
Ironically enough, here in South Florida, you're much more likely for the ethnic tension to be with Hispanics, not whites. Here, Cuban-Americans tend to be the ones who, as in Noah's post, want to be separate and distinct, while white folk will often practically cheer when they find that you're a Black American, and not a Black Cuban. And then there are the Caribbean people who, no matter how dark their complexions, insist that they are certainly NOT Black. Race and ethnicity are a complicated game.
BTW another interesting note on history: the Seminoles, who I believe were the only nation (pre-Vietnam) to fight the U.S. and not be defeated, were slave owners prior to the Civil War. But Blacks from Georgia and other parts would run south to get to them, since their brand of slavery tended to be more benign, more like European surfdom. (Not that there wasn't racism. Seminole oral folklore says that when the Great Spirit first made man, and he turned out white, but God thought him too pale and weak, so he tried again, made a Black man, but liked him even less than the white, and then God made the red man, and thus finally got it right.) But as a result of the Seminole-Black slave situation,, you had a fair amount of mixing between the groups, resulting in the "Black Seminoles," of whom the most famous, John Horse, led a violent, and ultimately successful, rebellion against the U.S. Army (commanded by Andrew Jackson, I think) during the Second Seminole war. Today, "Black Seminoles" tend to be claim the Seminole side more than the Black side (so you're not alone, Noah,) and I know quite a few African-Americans who are quick to tell you they have "Indians in their family," usually as a way to prize long, more European-type hair.
Great series so far.
I also found that interesting about the different ethnic dimensions and identities where you are. It would be a fascinating study as to why the groups identify as they do (i.e. why many blacks are proud of and claim native ancetry).
Thanks for your comment and insight.
Very compelling analysis here, particularly the justaposition of policy towards Native Americans and African Americans. Over the years, it seems, Amercian capitalism, hand in hand with racism, did what it had to do to advance its interests. Some additional thoughts:
- Native Americans were used as slaves, but it didn't work and they died off.
- Another example of attempts at assimilation for Native Americans (cultural genocide) was the boarding school system the federal government set up in the late 1800s.
- Some in the African American community have decried the assimilationist goals of the civil rights era because there was too little emphasis on economic self-determination, i.e., the right to sit at a lunch counter as opposed to purchasing one's own lunch counter.
And as for neilpaul's analysis, it was on point and very probing. It is interesting that the disparate treatment between whites and blacks by the police, and the criminalization of blackness in society (despite the fact that we have a black president) have been internalized and normalized to the point that many do not question the insanity of the racism. Police too often view communities of color as the jungle, and these communities often view the police as an army of occupation, not there to serve and protect, but to suppress and contain. The war on drugs, with its incursions and home invasions in the inner city, has been a war on people of color. The prison bed statistics prove it. Blacks and Latinos are nearly two-thirds of America's 2.3 million prisoners, due mostly to the war on drugs. But people of color do not consume or sell two-thirds of the drugs in the U.S. Crack cocaine was targeted n the 1980s because it was the drug of choice in poor black and brown communities, as opposed to the drugs of choice in Wall Street suites (before the economic meltdown I guess) and wealthy suburban enclaves.
Recently, a black undercover NYPD officer was fatally shot in the back by a white officer. This was not the first such incident, and sadly will not be the last. The assumption that black = criminal has cost many countless people of color their lives. I've never heard of a black cop mistaking a white undercover cop for a suspect. But in any case, it appears blackness is a justification for shooting someone in the back.
Enforcement discretion is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to select who they want to enforce laws against. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.
Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates Rule of Law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.
However, the converse can also be true. Police officer discretion is sometimes warranted for minor offenses, for instance where a warning to a teenager could be quite effective without putting the teen through a legal process which also reduces costs of governmental legal resources.
Another example is patrol officers parked on the side of a highway for speed enforcement. It may be impractical and cost prohibitive to ticket everyone who is going any amount over the speed limit, so the officer should watch for the more egregious cases and those drivers who are showing signs of driving recklessly. These cases do give the police judicial power to some degree, but it is not possible for an officer not to use judgement at one level or another.
On the matter of Selective Enforcement:
Selectivity in General - The conscious exercise of some selectivity in law enforcement is not by itself unconstitutional. When attempting to prove selective enforcement unconstitutional, it is insufficient merely to show that there is some evidence of selective enforcement.
Burden of Proof - A heavy burden rests on the defendant to show evidence of conscious, discriminatory prosecution.
Equal Protection - A valid statute may be rendered invalid as violative of equal protection if its provisions are selectively enforced. In order to accomplish this the defendant must show that while the law has been consciously and deliberately enforced against him, there is premeditated abstention from enforcing it against others. It is not enough to show that other violators have not been prosecuted. Failure to enforce the law for a certain group does not render charges against another void.
Discriminatory Enforcement - To prove selective enforcement a defendant must also show that the purposeful, intentional decision to concentrate enforcement upon him was based upon an unjustifiable and arbitrary standard such as race or religion, or upon a desire to inhibit First Amendment freedoms.
Rational Relation Test - Enforcement of an ordinance will not be considered unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory where it reflects a reasonably conceived, legitimate public purpose, or valid law enforcement objective. This is illustrated in Inturri v. Healy and State v. Boivnian where distinctions are drawn between two types of establishments for the purpose of isolating the more provocative for concentrated law enforcement.
In other words, it is no simple or easy matter to establish discrimination in the enforcement of the law and to get it to stop.
The process is expensive and protracted.
In a system which values "equal justice under law", it is clear that "equal justice" can be denied to those who are without sufficient resources to navigate the thicket of legal impedements designed to discourage and thwart attempts at seeking and securing the "equal protection of the law" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
I think your points are all well made. That is why there is a nexus between ending the "war on drugs" and progress toward fairness for all races. It is not true that minorities use drugs more than whites. It is true that they have their lives ruined by drug enforcement more than whites. That is why ending drug enforcement would leave minorities on a more equal footing in society.
This is just one benefit of ending the drug war.