Black Lives Matter and Post-Racial America

Welcome to the next installment of my “What the Hell is Going On?” collection drawn from my first book and various new essays that I have been sitting on and am now ready to publish. You can read the whole collection.

Racism?

I want to begin by saying that I will take a different tone in this essay than the one I wrote in 2019. In the intervening years, I have gathered fresh, lived experiences that have brought the subject of race in America much closer to home. I have a new experience of race because I have learned how the clever constructs I wrote about in the original essay had profoundly affected my life in ways that I did not understand. Now, when I write about race, I write with a new perspective on my lived experience. This is not a bad thing. However, the emotional effects were devastating to me. I am a black man in America, and that presents barriers and challenges that I will admit I did not think applied to me. I did not grow up in the typical world of a black person in America. I did not grow up in the inner city or a working-class suburb. There is much that I do not share. However, I have realized that there is much that I can share. 

I share in the denial of opportunity within society. I share in the struggles of early youth, where there are plenty of problems, little funding to solve them, and very few sources of support. To be black in America is like aerial acrobatics without a net. If you fall, there may not be anyone there to catch you. Family often cannot be relied upon, especially if you attempt to advance in life. Society certainly cannot be relied upon to enable a young, talented, black person to grow into their potential. Institutions often fail students of color in ways that profoundly affect their lives. I have seen these failures firsthand. I have experienced how institutions can fail; society can offer nothing, and often how fraught basic survival can be. 

I was not adequately prepared for this situation. I thought I could reap the bounties of America just like any of my peers. I learned that this was not the case. I blamed myself. I must not have worked hard enough, or perhaps I was underqualified or overqualified. Maybe I didn’t have the right degree or certification. I worked for free, gained experience, taught myself skills, and all in the service of trying to make myself acceptable to a system that was not built for my success. 

I have written about how the system is tweaked to favor the few over the many. Even when the system works for the many, it often leaves minorities behind. Housing and Education are both classic examples of this opportunity and wealth gap. Because of property taxes, these subjects are inextricably linked. After WWII, the government expanded its depression-era FHA (federal housing assistance) program to allow people to own homes. 

Black people, by and large, were not able to take advantage of these loans because the federal government had determined their neighborhoods were too risky for their investment. This policy is known as red-lining. This left neighborhoods with limited opportunity for ownership, which meant black parents were unable to bequeath their children and wealth. Those same children also went to less-funded schools because of lower property taxes. That’s two opportunities lost across three generations. The loss of human and actual capital is immense. Every time the federal government attempted to fix this, its solutions fell flat. 

America is at another inflection point on race and race relations in this country. Some commentators have compared it to Reconstruction and the “second founding,” as coined by Eric Foner. However, unlike after the Civil War, there is much less will to move the country forward on racial issues. As 2020 moved into 2021, we saw the rare loss of an incumbent president, and the pandemic continued to appear. When it came to race, there was little movement. 

Instead, since then, we have been trapped in a struggle between “woke culture” and “anti-woke culture,” with firebrands like Congresspeople Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Governor Ron DeSantis making being against the idea of social progress a significant part of their brand. Rather than try to do something significant to heal the racial divide in this country, a solid forty percent of the country has simply rejected the notion entirely. 

In this book, I have an essay called “The Death of the White, Heterosexual, Christian Narrative,” where I talked about this very problem in 2015. We have lived into what I thought would happen: people defending the old story would not go down without a fight. This is a theme I will return to in an essay on Woke Culture.

Black Lives Matter is probably one of the most important political moments in US history; despite the controversy, it is another manifestation of how our society has attempted to create that “more perfect union.” Originally begun over police violence, it has opened up a whole new conversation on race and race relations in the United States that is as potent as the Civil Rights movement. Certainly, the election of reality TV show host and real estate developer Donald Trump moved this conversation ever forward as he painted a picture of America that seemed only to include a very narrow group of people. Through his rallies and in his 2017 “American Carnage” inauguration speech, President Trump appealed to the people defending an old story about America. As I have said before, the question before us, as a people, is if America can continue without only one voice at the table. President Trump’s answer to that question was unequivocal: no. 

However, the public repudiation of Trumpism in 2020 shows that perhaps people wish to move in a different direction. Over the past five years, what has happened is a new conversation about who gets to live in our society, who gets to be a person, and who is allowed to have a fulfilling life. Nowhere is this more evident than in conversations about the economy and the socio-economic status of people. 

Economics and DEI

Economic equity is one of the areas where non-white minorities in the United States have continued to struggle. Welfare, housing projects/programs, and education programs have sought to repair these differences and improve the economic status of people over time. Many of these policies have not been successful. Immigrants often do better than native-born people. An outstanding example of this phenomenon is Indian-American immigrants who have significant incomes and seem to rise to the top of leadership of major tech companies. They arrive on our shores with tremendous education and a strong drive to succeed. 

For native-born people, white, European-descended people tend to lead. African Americans and Native Americans tend toward the bottom. It is often pointed out that a privileged few have done very well. But that isn’t the kind of equity that makes for a great society. 

Diversity is not when the best succeed but rather when the average can thrive. For racial minorities, the push is to be “excellent,” and there is no similar push for that for white children; the message is quite different. The idea that black people must be excellent to stand out is indicative of a gap in worthiness. This is not equity. 

Getting economic equity, not equity of outcome but equity of opportunity, is one of the areas of race relations in this country where little progress has been made. Average black household wealth is about $2,000 in total. This is despite the fact that Black women are leading in education and are one of the most educated groups in the country. What do Indian immigrants have that Black women, or Black men for that matter, don’t have?

One of the answers, an ancient idea, is that the IQ of black people is lower than other groups and that accounts for the achievement gap. The low IQ idea extends back to the earliest days of the Middle Passage and North American chattel slavery. In online dialogue, especially from far-right thinkers and even other more libertarian-minded people, the idea that IQ varies across races is still popular. 

In 2000, Linda S. Gottfredson, Ph.D. wrote an opinion column in Cerebrum, a scientific publication for the Dana Foundation (an organization that focuses on intelligence and brain science), where she proposed this idea at length and lampooned people who did not take racial differences in intelligence seriously. Citing a 1994 book, “The Bell Curve,” she states, “Was getting to the truth the critics’ real concern? Or was their aim, by any means possible, to overturn the claim that differences in intelligence create a decidedly unlevel play­ing field? Their strategy in ostensibly refuting the scientific case presented by The Bell Curve was to kick out at least one of the three essential legs supporting the case: that differ­ences in intelligence are real, stubborn, and important. The evidence for all three is over­whelming; however, so critics generally con­ceded at least one of them (although which one varied among the critics). The result was a cacophony of conflicting complaints about the book’s supposed errors, but this did not stop critics from joining arms to pronounce its science dead wrong.”

There is further controversy outside of the intelligence and brain sciences. There was a recent digital kerfuffle on Twitter with popular artificial intelligence writer Nick Bostrum, who put forth this false racial IQ idea.  On Twitter, he admitted that these differences “do not alter the moral value or human dignity of each person.” However, he still maintains that there are substantial racial differences in IQ. 

However, this is a relatively weak excuse. IQ tests have come under fire for being culturally biased and not using universal design principles. This means that those who design the test will design it for people with their cultural background, and those who share that cultural background will do better than those who do not. In 2021, the National Education Association wrote a piece for NEA Today entitled “The Racist Beginnings of Standardized Testing,” talking about the racist history of standardized testing in all its forms. This is particularly important because high-stakes standardized testing has become routine in public schools nationwide and has harmful effects (see my essay on Education in this book). From the earliest days of these tests in World War I, they were used to separate soldiers based on their race. 

In the article, they state, “In his essay “The Racist Origins of the SAT,” Gil Troy calls Brigham a “Pilgrim-pedigreed, eugenics-blinded bigot.” Eugenics is often defined as the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Francis Galton developed it as a method of improving the human race. Only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis in World War II was the theory dismissed. ‘All-American decency and idealism coexisted uncomfortably with these scientists’ equally American racism and closemindedness,’ Troy writes.”

The IQ problem continues when it has been proven that most IQ differences between races are a matter of culture, not innate intelligence. In a 2019 Mother Jones article, “Here’s Why the Black-White IQ Gap Is Almost Certainly Environmental,” Kevin Drum responds to a reader who asked why the difference is cultural and not innate. He focuses on the fact that Humans migrated to Europe about 40,000 years ago, and civilization began only about 10,000 years ago. That isn’t enough time for differences to bear themselves through genetics alone. He also cites that over the 20th century, IQ points increased by 3 points a decade. Humans have not made any major genetic leaps in only a century. This has entirely to do with the environment. This includes better education, fortified foods, and an abundant food supply in developed nations. This isn’t even new. I found an essay from The Jehovah’s Witness newsletter, The Watchtower, from 1977 that refuted these claims. Entitled, “Are Whites More Intelligent than Blacks?” The essay takes pages to develop the idea that intelligence is not innate, and the very idea is absurd. 

What does this have to do with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? What does this have to do with economics, for that matter? As long as excuses like IQ can be used to justify the inequalities between minority communities in our society, this leaves politicians and other structural forces unaccountable for the marginalization of communities of color, particularly the African-American community. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion seeks to fix this problem. 

Over the past 20 years, several ideas have been about “diversity.” Legal institutions like Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (AAEO in the jargon) have tried to offer opportunities to minority groups and women. Over the last five years, a new version of diversity has taken hold. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion seeks to take “diversity” to a new level and adds the idea of equity and inclusion.

 Equity is not merely providing opportunity but actively reducing the barriers that some may face in getting a chance. For example, the unpaid internship is only accessible to those with the resources to work for free, which is a huge barrier for anyone whose family does not come from a certain amount of means. Equity ensures that the internship is paid and paid enough that all qualified people can apply regardless of their ability to work for free. Equity also includes reducing barriers on an individual basis, helping people where they are to achieve, and taking advantage of all the opportunities that they might be qualified to pursue. 

Inclusion is another layer added to the old canard of “diversity.” This policy ensures that all groups are represented in decision-making at the organizational level. Inclusion is in reaction to the reality that the decision-makers in most organizations are all from similar backgrounds and tend to be of one gender and race. This is an area where women have made tremendous progress, especially in the C-Suites of major companies. Women of color are still catching up but are coming up fast. Inclusion means that if someone walks into a room and sees only one type of person represented, that should strike them as wrong. 

Studies have shown that organizations that diversify their corporate boards make more money, especially when women are added to the board. People of color also add tremendous value. Over the past several years, we have seen new faces from diverse media and political backgrounds. Despite her lack of popularity, Vice President Kamala Harris is still the first woman of color to hold high office in the United States. That fact would have been nearly out of the imagination just a generation ago. In fact, the two previous Democrat presidential administrations have included a person of color on the ticket (President Obama in 2008 and Vice President Harris in 2020). 

Hearing new voices with new experiences can start conversations that wouldn’t have been had before. One moment in 2020 that was so tremendous was the virulent back and forth between then-Senator Kamala Harris and then-candidate Joe Biden. Biden promoted his progress on de-segregation of schools via bussing. Kamala Harris was able to stand up as a highly qualified person of color and challenge him on his record. She took the conversation from theoretical to reality by discussing how his policies affected her experience. Our society is stronger when Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are part of hiring, politics, and even volunteer organizations. 

What DEI really seeks to do is create new opportunities for marginalized groups. Expecting people who face additional barriers to opportunity to seek out the same opportunities simply doesn’t work. This includes class, race, gender expression, and sexuality. It is not merely enough to hire anyone or the “most qualified” person but to specifically seek out people from various backgrounds. As you can imagine, there has been some backlash. 

For the right wing, DEI has become another front in America’s ongoing culture wars. DEI has gotten lumped into the “woke” dialogue. Woke Culture is a subject that I will address in an additional essay in this book. For now, I want to turn our attention back to the topic of Black Lives Matter protests: police violence. 

Protests and Police Violence

2020 saw the most violence in America’s cities since 1968. After the killing of George Floyd by police, riots broke out from coast to coast. The phrase “Black Lives Matter” pre-dates these protests (it was used as early as 2017), but this idea was joined by other phrases like “Defund the Police” and “ACAB” (All Cops Are Bastards). Throughout much of the country, things were out of control. In Seattle, protestors drove the police out of a precinct station and seized six blocks of the city for nearly four months. In Portland, government buildings stood under siege from protestors for almost a year. 

The summer of 2020 was a summer of violence. There were protests nightly in the streets of many cities. Things had simply spun out of control. It was also not lost on anyone that it was probably a bad idea for groups to gather outside en masse during a global pandemic, but at least COVID-19 doesn’t spread as quickly outdoors. This also coincided with a change in how Americans live their lives. Those who could work from home abandoned their commutes into cities. Office buildings stood empty, and people hid in their houses. This also allowed for protests to increase in volume and violence. In a time of insanity, the racial protests contributed even more to the insanity of 2020. 

Since then, social order in many of America’s cities seems to have simply come undone. Between the businesses shut down from the pandemic and a precipitous rise in houselessness and crime, the state of the American city right now is dire at best. Right-wing commentators have been accusatory of Democrats for the failures in America’s cities (most of which are run by Democrats), and the controversy around Black Lives Matter has only added to the veracity of these accusations. Anyone who lives near a major city can drive through or simply look outside and see how things have declined. 

Of all the violent protests, especially in Portland and Minneapolis, some cities have tried to reallocate their police budgets to try to reduce police violence. Minneapolis ultimately started its police force over again. In Dallas, they begged the public to apply to the force. In Seattle, the city council has reduced the police budget over and over again. There are currently under 1,000 officers in the city of Seattle. 

Was this the fundamental goal of Black Lives Matter? Has anything improved for all the violence, burning, and protests? One could argue that it has not. On the one hand, violent cops are not being prosecuted and convicted like Derek Chauvin. But it has not meaningfully reduced police violence. Stories of people being assaulted and killed by police continue to come out. Stories like Brionna Taylor don’t help the reputation of the police. She was shot in her own home during a raid at the wrong address. 

The New Segregation

America has always been a multi-racial democracy. For most of American history, many of the other races have been disenfranchised from any kind of political power. Some groups were able to gain political power in time (Italians, Irish, poles, etc.), but other groups remained outside of the halls of power. In my original essay on Racism, I speak about this at length. There is still much to be done regarding accurate equity and creating a society where people can have opportunity and social mobility. 

We are in an age of the new segregation where race is not only a way in which people are oppressed, but it is also something that is a source of conflict as groups rub up against each other. We see this most starkly in the recent changes to university admissions because there were “too many Asians.” Indeed, Asians have been oppressed by their status as the “model minority” anyway. 

Politically, Asian Americans have not been as politically active as they are now becoming. They are now competing with Hispanics, Blacks, Native Americans, and Whites for attention, resources, and political power. In a multi-racial democracy, it is vital to make a specific effort to include all groups. Inclusion can prevent further conflict, but that isn’t the only side of the story.

The beginnings of White racial consciousness exacerbate the move toward a multi-racial democracy. I’ve said for five years that the big story out of the 2016 election was not merely right-wing populism but that White people began to vote as a race like other groups in this country. This sets us up for more racial tension in the future. Now, the competition is not merely between Blacks and Whites, with other groups mostly aligning with the White side. All these groups will be competing from now on. Whichever party does the best at including these different groups will win elections. 

This new system on which we are embarking amounts to a new kind of segregation. Rather than simply thinking of ourselves as human beings who all happen to live in the same country and have the same wants, needs, and desires, we continue to divide ourselves into smaller and smaller groups. LGBTQ people are certainly a new political force that has to be reckoned with, even though the group isn’t large enough to be an electoral mover. However, a candidate’s stance on the group can make or break a campaign (depending on the political party).