Is Racism Worse Now Than in the '80s?

[Woodmonkey]

Is Racism Worse Now Than in the '80s?

Racism and sexism may be deepening despite decades of measures aimed at cleansing them from society. This conclusion is suggested by the ugly and unrelenting public backlash that surrounds the Duke Lacrosse case in which a black female was allegedly raped by three white males.

If racism and sexism are deepening, I believe it is because of and not despite the measures now being taken.

Racism shares many political characteristics with sexism, and the two are usually addressed in a similar manner; almost identical laws and policies seek to eliminate or otherwise control both.

Consider racism. For purposes of this article, it means judging a person by his or her racial identity rather than individual merit. Few people would argue that racism is worse today than in the 1950s when Jim Crow laws stained society.

These state and local laws were mostly enforced in the South and bordering states between 1876 and 1964; they prohibited or restricted blacks from accessing public facilities like public schools.

But is racial tension today better than in the 1980s?

By the mid-'80s, Jim Crow laws had been dead for two decades -- a full generation. In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson set a new social course called The Great Society. The plan was to eliminate poverty and racism through an integrated and sweeping program of reform that ranged from education to agriculture, from health to 'urban problems.' Policies such as affirmative action arose from these reforms; discrimination against minorities or women in the marketplace gradually became illegal.

Mid-'80s culture had also been redefined by social movements such as civil rights and feminism.

And yet, 20 years and another generation later, racism now seems as bad or worse than in the '80s.

I believe it is worse and that the measures intended to remedy racism are a major cause of the deterioration. Decades ago, the issue of race needed shaking to its root. On a cultural level, any honest re-examination would have resulted in improvement. On a legal level, removing Jim Crow laws and all other references to race within the legal system was necessary.

But instead of removing references to race, many laws and policies used race as a filter to define the treatment an individual would receive not only by government but also in non-governmental arenas, such as employment.

The institutionalization of racial bias occurred on both a federal and local level.

The official "Definitions of Racism" offered by the Seattle Public Schools offers an example of the latter; it defines the approach to racism teachers in that system should adopt. The core definition of racism is, "The systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites). The subordination is supported by the actions of individuals, cultural norms and values, and the institutional structures and practices of society."

By this definition, it is impossible to commit an act of racism against a white person. Also, the definition converts racism from an act into a pattern of attitudes; ideas and not actions become the target of control.

Sub-categories of racism are also defined. 'Cultural Racism' is, in part, "[t]hose aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness…Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology…"

'Active Racism' includes advocating "protection of 'the rights' of members of the agent group [whites]."

By these definitions, standing up for individual rights such as freedom of speech, especially if the individual is white, is racist. Individualism becomes the new racism.

The Seattle school policy is one instance of inserting racial bias into institutions, most notably the education and legal systems. Such bias engenders a sense of entitlement within included races and a dangerous resentment within the excluded ones. Such policies create racial tension.

What is the solution?

I believe that most social problems arise from violence or other violations of individual rights. By treating all individuals as equal under laws that protect their person and property, social problems shrink. By punishing or rewarding people according to their conduct and not their racial identity, racism shrinks.

If a white man rapes a black woman, it is not wrong because the perpetrator is white and the victim is black. Reverse the races and the act is still wrong because rape is an [italic]act[italic] of violence. You do not control and are not responsible for your racial identity but you are absolutely accountable for your conduct.

Racism has no easy answer. But a necessary prerequisite is to dead-letter all laws and policies that express racial preference and replace them with ones that connect consequences to conduct rather than to race.

On a more personal level, stop apologizing for being white or any racial group identified on a government checklist. Apologize only for your actions; they are all you control. Your actions are who you are.

The Source

[Snowden]

Political correctness - or the explosion within the welfare program, either one, hasn't helped a bit.

Yes, it's worse; maybe because it seems nobody on earth is so targeted for racism and the feminist movement, as the white man. For some reason, even the churches have to push the inclusive language, and I detest it.

The Nicene Creed, which states our faith so well, says in part, "For us men and our salvation, He came down..." and now we hear from the altar, "For us all and our salvation, God came down..." Yes, we figured that was who it is, but pronouns are no longer acceptable. And all is hardly needed if a person is educated to the point of realizing "men" means "mankind." Women are not omitted, nor do we, as the Islamic women, only get half the deal.

Political correctness; the worst thing to have been inflicted on people since mosquitoes.

And welfare has countered it to a certain extent; now we can all live like there's no tomorrow - just be bored to death and collect the small amount of money doled out by the tax payers and live low. Anybody can do it.

If a white man rapes a black woman, it is not wrong because the perpetrator is white and the victim is black. Reverse the races and the act is still wrong because rape is an act of violence. You do not control and are not responsible for your racial identity but you are absolutely accountable for your conduct.

And the same is true if a white man rapes a white woman or a black man rapes a black woman.

[Bluehawk]

George Will wrote an excellent op ed piece for the June 5th edition of NEWSWEEK on this very topic... titled "White Guilt, Deciphered"... page 68.

I cannot get it copied for us here somehow... but, it is darn sure worth a close read.

[SherryGrace]

only for whites

[USA11B]

Whites a minority in US cities
A Hispanic family walks past a mural in Los Angeles
The urban Hispanic population is growing rapidly
White people make up less than 50% of the population of the 100 largest cities in the United States for the first time in history, census data show.

While they are a majority in 52 of the 100 largest cities, they make up only 44% of the total population of those cities.

White v non-white population of US cities, 1990 and 2000
In 1990, non-Hispanic whites were the majority population in 70 of the 100 largest US cities, making up 52% of the total.

Hispanics are the fastest growing urban group in the US, according to the census - increasing at a rate of 72% in the 20 fastest-growing cities, compared to 5% for whites.

Overall, US cities gained 3.8 million Hispanic residents, an increase of 43% on 1990.

Chicago, the third-largest city in the US, grew in the 1990s for the first time since 1950, partly due to an influx of over 200,000 Hispanics.

Boston, Dallas and Los Angeles would all have probably decreased in size in the 1990s but for Hispanic growth.

Implications

The change in demographics is likely to have a significant impact on public policy, Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution told The New York Times.

Growth rates of various ethnic groups in the US, 1990 to 2000
Cities may have less money to work with, for example, because the average household income for a Hispanic family is about $14,000 per year less than for a white family.

Hispanic families therefore tend to pay less tax.

At the same time, they also tend to have more children than white families, placing greater demands on the education system.

The change is already making itself felt in politics, with the son of a Mexican immigrant, Antonio Villaraigosa, hoping to become the first Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles since 1872.

However there is no correlation between increased population and greater political power.

The New York Times pointed out that non-Hispanic whites are a minority overall in California, but nearly 75% of Californian voters in last November's elections were white.

At the same time, only 36% of California public (state) school pupils are white.
Source

[USA11B]

I think it possible that more are aware that racist come in all colors shapes and sizes than was thought in the 60's and 70's.
Starting in the 80's, changing demographics seem to perpetuate racism. Just my POV.

[Bluehawk]

I think there is a possibility, if not a certainty, that this trend (or onslaught) is a kind of intentional "payback" racial Imperialism...