I find that discussions of the under representation of Black citizens in upper middle income jobs nearly always neglect the psychological damage caused by 400 years of racism in the United States. The widely held belief that African Americans are intellectually inferior to other races permeates our culture. When people get that message, however subtlety, they tend to assume it is true, perhaps especially Black people. If a child is told over and over that they are “stupid” or “will never amount to anything” they will usually believe it unless they are provided convincing evidence and psychological support to the contrary. Why do Black Africans and Black West Indian immigrants tend to succeed in the United States? I would submit that it is because they were spared the crippling effects of racist assumptions as they were growing up. Unless we endeavor to correct that problem we aren’t addressing a root causes of racial disparities in America.
In principle what you argue is certainly true. But I would question how far you can take the 'legacy' argument today as a psychological barrier. There are other more salient barriers today that have clear psychological impact. One for sure is the current narrative itself that America is irredeemably shot through with systemic racism. If you grow up constantly being told that the system is rigged against you, why even bother to try? The constant hammering by the woke is extremely discouraging to any average kid and serves only to fire up those who would be radicalized to join the fight to overthrow the system. It's a revolutionary message, not an adaptive one. So doing well as a normal citizen is taken off the table for poor black kids. I'd say this is much more pernicious than anything held over from the past. And further, what is even more discouraging in American black communities, that can't be said for immigrant black communities is the absence of fathers as role models for achievement in the majority, 70%, of households. This reality is certainly not a result of past racism but a result of welfare policies brought in after the Civil Rights movement that sought to alleviate poverty for single parent families, mostly headed by women. Many poor women could calculate they would be better off without a man (breadwinner) in the family than with one. Before the 1960s, that percentage among black families was below 30%. The more fathers are marginalized, the worse it gets, affecting boys and girls, but boys most of all. Both of these factors are, I submit, much more impactful than the messaging they might have gotten about 'inferiority'.
It comes from both sources and both are generated by the very widespread belief that Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites. As someone who has spent a good deal of time in the West Indies, I can tell you that essentially no one there regards Black people, as a group, as intellectually inferior to White people. By the way, in the previous post about Caribbean people not coming from two parent families the author might want want to check out the statistics from Barbados where single motherhood has for many decades been the cultural norm without significant negative consequences.
The fact that single motherhood doesn’t produce negative consequences in Barbados doesn’t mean it doesn’t produce negative consequences in a different cultural context. It’s just not the only variable.
How often do you think these messages are so blatant as your examples of "a child is told over and over that they are “stupid” or “will never amount to anything”?" And is that level of blatant negativity more likely to come from inside or outside the Black community, in your estimation?
(Not meaning to downplay the possible effect of more subtle, but pervasive, negativity.)
I think it most blatantly comes from within the Black community, particularly the community of the Black poor. A frustrated young mother angered by her child lashes out with those remarks which she herself was lashed with as a child. These things are often passed down through generations as a by product of the historical American racism. Middle class Black parents know better and would be no more likely to verbally lash their child than parents of any other race. Similarly, African or Black Caribbean parents wouldn’t think to use such debased child control techniques. Certainly the Caribbean islands had vicious forms of slavery, but after slavery was abolished in the British Caribbean in the 1830’s these overwhelmingly Black communities righted themselves through their own value systems. It’s only in the United States where the slim Black minority still had to labor under a social regime that presumed their intellectual and moral inferiority that substantial segments of the Black community remains dysfunctional. My point is not to “blame” White people but rather to open people’s eyes to how where we are and we got here. Guilt is of very limited use. Analysis and self-awareness are probably more useful tools in digging our society out of the deep refuse pile of American racism.
Would be fascinating to see careful data on this (if that's even possible) with both race and class as separate variables. To what extent do poor whites internalize inferiority? If they do, how is it different from what arose from racial stereotypes?
The Europeans didn't introduce racism & slavery(including chattel) to North America and South America. Both of those things were already here when they came to this side of the planet.
The article and follow on conversation can be further expanded into the 'systemic quietude' on actual social reforms. I was struck by Isabel Wilkerson's quietness when it came to a lifting of the stigma and laws against interracial marriage. Her thesis of the United States having a caste system (generally noted in strict opposition to intermarriage) is undone with Loving v. Virginia (1967) and noted in Gallup polls since then. This systemic avoidance of acknowledging change makes articles like this ever more necessary. My analysis can be found here: The Struggle to Produce an Ethnic Studies Curriculum in Multiracial California - Times of San Diego
"People/Person/Writer/Artist/Actor/Student of color", "community/communities of color" & all the other terms like them are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're a sign of devolution. Not to mention using those terms perpetuate racism instead of lessening it.
David- this is so thoughtful. Thank you for publishing. I have a number of thoughts I would like to share and discuss with you. Please reach out to me directly if you are interested.
Bernstein casually seems to admit systemic racism exists but never really explains what he really is acknowledging. That’s because as is evidenced by his essay, Bernstein really only acknowledges blatant and facially racist policies. He needs the kind of beyond a reasonable doubt evidence reserved for the criminal setting and too conveniently ignores mass disparities that only can be attributable to race.
It’s Not 100% clear you read the article but I’ll give an old friend the benefit of the doubt. Almost none of the policies I deem likely racist are obviously so. I argue that some claims of systemic racism are inconsistent and illogical (you can argue than I’m wrong but that’s what I’m arguing). Some claims could be true but should be subject, one would think, to some scrutiny. Is there another claim that is unfalsifiable that we say no evidence is required? I don’t come close to arguing we need beyond the reasonable doubt proof. What I am arguing that we need reasonable discussion about these claims —issue by issue, claim by claim. Otherwise you’re asking for a blank check to make claims. And how will making claims that are incontestable and uncontested really help overcome disparity?
People are complex. Or, to be more precise, they act and speak inside an array of often conflicting motivational forces that even they themselves do not fully understand. A model of "systemic cause" (racial bigotry or other drivers) almost has to employ a statistical framework to reasonably represent the relative contribution of these forces to the actual outcomes in which we are interested.
There is a lot not to like about these models, but at least they formally recognize the absurdity of any single cause for widespread ("systemic") outcomes. If someone were to ask me for David Bernstein's definition of "systemic racism" as it is used in the first sentence of your third paragraph I would say: "it is the portion of the aggregate motivational force in a complex system which is reducible to the personal bigotry or antipathy of the actors for people perceived to be members of a different race."
This is not a satisfying definition for the obvious reason that we have no idea how to measure these things and - not trivially - if our sets are large enough we're essentially guaranteed at least some bigotry in the mix. But the definition also has the tremendous upside of forcing us to consider a whole array of inputs to the system.
The definition also suggests the value of a more formal, empirical and rigorous approach to the "interrogation" of claims than we normally bring. The fact that 20% of the companies studied in the Berkeley/Chicago study were found to account for 50% of the callback disparity was a wonderful example of the power and utility of this style of analysis. Similarly, Roland Fryer's estimation that discrimination accounts for 7% of income disparity in the workplace is the kind of claim that generates a conversation radically more useful than the broad claim that organizations are white supremacist if they have not achieved perfect income parity. 7% is not a small number, but I bet it was worse twenty years ago. We should be glad for that. We should ask: what has been working to reduce that 7%? And what has not been working?
As you said: "reasonable discussion... claim by claim" moves our inquiry into the realm of actionable corrections and reforms. Blanket assertions of systemic racism, uninformed by any recognition of the multitude of drivers at play moves us into a kind of reform kabuki. If they are irredeemable from the outset then all that is left to the members of majority cultures is proving that they "get it," and continuing business as usual.
Yes very well said. I like your definition too. We actually have something worse than lack of rigor. We have a taboo, which makes it even more difficult to solve actual problems. My friend Jeff above likes to speak of empathy, which requires deference to the experience of others. I believe in empathy too: empathy for the people stuck in place or losing ground, and the seriousness of mind and purpose to seek actual solutions.
I find that discussions of the under representation of Black citizens in upper middle income jobs nearly always neglect the psychological damage caused by 400 years of racism in the United States. The widely held belief that African Americans are intellectually inferior to other races permeates our culture. When people get that message, however subtlety, they tend to assume it is true, perhaps especially Black people. If a child is told over and over that they are “stupid” or “will never amount to anything” they will usually believe it unless they are provided convincing evidence and psychological support to the contrary. Why do Black Africans and Black West Indian immigrants tend to succeed in the United States? I would submit that it is because they were spared the crippling effects of racist assumptions as they were growing up. Unless we endeavor to correct that problem we aren’t addressing a root causes of racial disparities in America.
In principle what you argue is certainly true. But I would question how far you can take the 'legacy' argument today as a psychological barrier. There are other more salient barriers today that have clear psychological impact. One for sure is the current narrative itself that America is irredeemably shot through with systemic racism. If you grow up constantly being told that the system is rigged against you, why even bother to try? The constant hammering by the woke is extremely discouraging to any average kid and serves only to fire up those who would be radicalized to join the fight to overthrow the system. It's a revolutionary message, not an adaptive one. So doing well as a normal citizen is taken off the table for poor black kids. I'd say this is much more pernicious than anything held over from the past. And further, what is even more discouraging in American black communities, that can't be said for immigrant black communities is the absence of fathers as role models for achievement in the majority, 70%, of households. This reality is certainly not a result of past racism but a result of welfare policies brought in after the Civil Rights movement that sought to alleviate poverty for single parent families, mostly headed by women. Many poor women could calculate they would be better off without a man (breadwinner) in the family than with one. Before the 1960s, that percentage among black families was below 30%. The more fathers are marginalized, the worse it gets, affecting boys and girls, but boys most of all. Both of these factors are, I submit, much more impactful than the messaging they might have gotten about 'inferiority'.
Also not clear what percentage of the inferiority message is coming from the outside (racism) or is being generated internally by peer culture etc.
It comes from both sources and both are generated by the very widespread belief that Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites. As someone who has spent a good deal of time in the West Indies, I can tell you that essentially no one there regards Black people, as a group, as intellectually inferior to White people. By the way, in the previous post about Caribbean people not coming from two parent families the author might want want to check out the statistics from Barbados where single motherhood has for many decades been the cultural norm without significant negative consequences.
The fact that single motherhood doesn’t produce negative consequences in Barbados doesn’t mean it doesn’t produce negative consequences in a different cultural context. It’s just not the only variable.
How often do you think these messages are so blatant as your examples of "a child is told over and over that they are “stupid” or “will never amount to anything”?" And is that level of blatant negativity more likely to come from inside or outside the Black community, in your estimation?
(Not meaning to downplay the possible effect of more subtle, but pervasive, negativity.)
I think it most blatantly comes from within the Black community, particularly the community of the Black poor. A frustrated young mother angered by her child lashes out with those remarks which she herself was lashed with as a child. These things are often passed down through generations as a by product of the historical American racism. Middle class Black parents know better and would be no more likely to verbally lash their child than parents of any other race. Similarly, African or Black Caribbean parents wouldn’t think to use such debased child control techniques. Certainly the Caribbean islands had vicious forms of slavery, but after slavery was abolished in the British Caribbean in the 1830’s these overwhelmingly Black communities righted themselves through their own value systems. It’s only in the United States where the slim Black minority still had to labor under a social regime that presumed their intellectual and moral inferiority that substantial segments of the Black community remains dysfunctional. My point is not to “blame” White people but rather to open people’s eyes to how where we are and we got here. Guilt is of very limited use. Analysis and self-awareness are probably more useful tools in digging our society out of the deep refuse pile of American racism.
Would be fascinating to see careful data on this (if that's even possible) with both race and class as separate variables. To what extent do poor whites internalize inferiority? If they do, how is it different from what arose from racial stereotypes?
The Europeans didn't introduce racism & slavery(including chattel) to North America and South America. Both of those things were already here when they came to this side of the planet.
Very helpful analysis, which would link up nicely to further exploration of the social theories underpinning various notions of systemic racism
The article and follow on conversation can be further expanded into the 'systemic quietude' on actual social reforms. I was struck by Isabel Wilkerson's quietness when it came to a lifting of the stigma and laws against interracial marriage. Her thesis of the United States having a caste system (generally noted in strict opposition to intermarriage) is undone with Loving v. Virginia (1967) and noted in Gallup polls since then. This systemic avoidance of acknowledging change makes articles like this ever more necessary. My analysis can be found here: The Struggle to Produce an Ethnic Studies Curriculum in Multiracial California - Times of San Diego
https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2020/12/29/the-struggle-to-produce-an-ethnic-studies-curriculum-in-multiracial-california/
Thanks for publishing this piece. It is excellent.
"People/Person/Writer/Artist/Actor/Student of color", "community/communities of color" & all the other terms like them are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're a sign of devolution. Not to mention using those terms perpetuate racism instead of lessening it.
David- this is so thoughtful. Thank you for publishing. I have a number of thoughts I would like to share and discuss with you. Please reach out to me directly if you are interested.
Please email me at davidlbernstein66@gmail.com
Bernstein casually seems to admit systemic racism exists but never really explains what he really is acknowledging. That’s because as is evidenced by his essay, Bernstein really only acknowledges blatant and facially racist policies. He needs the kind of beyond a reasonable doubt evidence reserved for the criminal setting and too conveniently ignores mass disparities that only can be attributable to race.
It’s Not 100% clear you read the article but I’ll give an old friend the benefit of the doubt. Almost none of the policies I deem likely racist are obviously so. I argue that some claims of systemic racism are inconsistent and illogical (you can argue than I’m wrong but that’s what I’m arguing). Some claims could be true but should be subject, one would think, to some scrutiny. Is there another claim that is unfalsifiable that we say no evidence is required? I don’t come close to arguing we need beyond the reasonable doubt proof. What I am arguing that we need reasonable discussion about these claims —issue by issue, claim by claim. Otherwise you’re asking for a blank check to make claims. And how will making claims that are incontestable and uncontested really help overcome disparity?
People are complex. Or, to be more precise, they act and speak inside an array of often conflicting motivational forces that even they themselves do not fully understand. A model of "systemic cause" (racial bigotry or other drivers) almost has to employ a statistical framework to reasonably represent the relative contribution of these forces to the actual outcomes in which we are interested.
There is a lot not to like about these models, but at least they formally recognize the absurdity of any single cause for widespread ("systemic") outcomes. If someone were to ask me for David Bernstein's definition of "systemic racism" as it is used in the first sentence of your third paragraph I would say: "it is the portion of the aggregate motivational force in a complex system which is reducible to the personal bigotry or antipathy of the actors for people perceived to be members of a different race."
This is not a satisfying definition for the obvious reason that we have no idea how to measure these things and - not trivially - if our sets are large enough we're essentially guaranteed at least some bigotry in the mix. But the definition also has the tremendous upside of forcing us to consider a whole array of inputs to the system.
The definition also suggests the value of a more formal, empirical and rigorous approach to the "interrogation" of claims than we normally bring. The fact that 20% of the companies studied in the Berkeley/Chicago study were found to account for 50% of the callback disparity was a wonderful example of the power and utility of this style of analysis. Similarly, Roland Fryer's estimation that discrimination accounts for 7% of income disparity in the workplace is the kind of claim that generates a conversation radically more useful than the broad claim that organizations are white supremacist if they have not achieved perfect income parity. 7% is not a small number, but I bet it was worse twenty years ago. We should be glad for that. We should ask: what has been working to reduce that 7%? And what has not been working?
As you said: "reasonable discussion... claim by claim" moves our inquiry into the realm of actionable corrections and reforms. Blanket assertions of systemic racism, uninformed by any recognition of the multitude of drivers at play moves us into a kind of reform kabuki. If they are irredeemable from the outset then all that is left to the members of majority cultures is proving that they "get it," and continuing business as usual.
Yes very well said. I like your definition too. We actually have something worse than lack of rigor. We have a taboo, which makes it even more difficult to solve actual problems. My friend Jeff above likes to speak of empathy, which requires deference to the experience of others. I believe in empathy too: empathy for the people stuck in place or losing ground, and the seriousness of mind and purpose to seek actual solutions.
Tolerance isn't the same thing as acceptance