The Recess Supervisor is arguably the most incisive observer of state politics on the scene. That's why it's disappointing to see that when it comes to discussing race in America he sinks to Republican cant.
In a comment string following his post blasting Obama's A More Perfect Union speech, RS says:
Race is a much bigger issue among blacks than whites. The average white person on the street could give a flip about someone's skin color. It will be so until blacks are willing to accept that much of what has occurred within their communities in the last 30 years is almost exclusive their own fault. It is the way in which inner-city culture (blacks and whites both) celebrates violence, misogyny, drugs, and crime, the way in which it discourages responsibility, encourages dependence and victimization, that holds people in those communities back.
Black leaders embrace race as an issue because without it, they can't use victimization as an excuse for the many perils that affect poor, mostly black communities.
****
We would all like to get to a race-neutral society. In all honesty, I think whites are much closer to that target than blacks (though there are obvious exceptions on both sides, including the emerging black middle class). To get there also means that black leaders will have to embrace personal responsibility and accountability instead of excusing the history of negative behavior displayed by economically-disadvantaged black communities and encouraging them to use whites and government as an excuse for their lot in life.
Given that RS prides himself on independent thinking, it's odd to see him regurgitate GOP talking points wholesale.
The contention that "the average white person on the street could give a flip about someone's skin color" is dubious at best. Joe Whiteboy might think he doesn't give a flip about someone's skin color. But there are plenty of examples of differential treatment based on skin color that suggest otherwise.
Indeed, blacks and whites have different perspectives on how blacks are treated compared to whites. According to a 2000 survey by the New York Times, 45% of blacks said they were treated less fairly than whites in restaurants, bars, theaters or other entertainment places. Only 10% of whites saw that. And 66% of blacks said they were treated less fairly than whites in dealings with police, such as traffic accidents. Only 25% of whites saw that to be the case. Also, 58% of whites say white and black people have equal chances of getting ahead; 39% of blacks agreed.
Do whites have superior line of sight as to how blacks are treated? Are blacks just making this up?
The statement that "much of whas has occurred within their communities in the last 30 years is almost exclusive(ly) their own fault" ignores too many other factors -- shrinking taxbase, deindustrialization, white flight, etc. -- to be taken seriously. Consider this: In 1970, median African-American family income in Milwaukee was 19 percent above the national black average, according to U.S. Census Bureau. In 2000 it was 23 percent below. What accounted for that? Did Milwaukee blacks get disproportionately shiftless? Was it hip hop's fault? The Brawler would suggest the more likely culprit was the hollowing out of the city's industrial base.
Economics isn't everything, a point made by William Julius Wilson, Cornel West and others. But saying "culture" is the underlying cause of the state of the inner city is a major stretch.
Indeed, William Julius Wilson demonstrated in "When Work Disappears" that even in "poverty tracts" in Chicago, that the vast majority of poor urban blacks shared the "work ethic" that many white onlookers are quick to say they lack (and instead trot out the "dependency" and "victimization" cards). Fully 70.5% percent said hard work was important to getting ahead. If money and benefits were the same, 80.8% said they would want to work vs. the 16.3% that said they would prefer aid (for whites the split was 87.7% to 10.7%). (Note: The relevant polling was conducted in 1987. The numbers likely have moved since then. But even if they moved down, the Brawler would suspect that a majority of the group would share the attitudes expressed.)
Real quickly, I am not sure on what he bases his contention that whites are closer to some ideal of race neutrality than blacks. As far as his reductionist analysis of unnamed black leaders, their motivation and their seemingly awesome grip over their flock: plenty talk about personal responsibility, getting a job, etc. I'm quite sure Jeremiah Wright did so. And if RS would look, I'm sure he'd find cases of them attacking some of the manifestations of the "culture" that concern him (Al Sharpton going after hip-hop lyrics, for instance).
Long story short: I think placing the onus for ongoing racial strife in the U.S. on blacks is misplaced, if not bizarre. Fault lies on both "sides" and I think it's a bit early for whites to pat themselves on the back.
All that said, the Brawler would want to note that the aforementioned NYT survey found 58% of whites and 51% of blacks said race relations were generally good in 2000. Ten years earlier those numbers were 43% and 33%. In 2000, 78% of whites and 58% of blacks said there was progress in getting rid of racial discrimination; in 1992 those numbers were 53% and 29%. For all the Brawler's liberal handwringing, he agrees with the people seeing things improving. But that doesn't mean complacency is an option.
