There's many draws to calling a certain policy racist:

1. It draws clear distinctions (who is the bad guy, who is the good guy). That way, people can easily rally behind a cause. 2. It creates a common enemy; a promoter of the bad.

The problem, of course, is that 1) sometimes it's overly reductive and 2) sometimes it's really alienating in an unfair way.

If you don't know me, I'm a white dude. Like most of you, I was born with a certain skin color. During college, I worked essentially as a glorified custodian in the multicultural center on campus. We had awesome events there... the experience was incredible. But at times, I went home pretty bummed out. Sometimes it honestly would suck the life out of me.

We'd have events in the building where people would have fantastic causes against governmental policies or bank regulations. They'd point out all kinds of biases in our criminal justice system that dramatically hurt the poor. I was totally on board, riled up and ready to go!

And then a speaker would declare it's the greed of the white man or that white people are an oppressive people.

I spoke with one of the guys who said that after the rally. I told him, "I was totally with you, really pumped about the issues, and then you alienated me. I don't get that. As far as I know, I'm not in much of a position of power. I'm pretty damn broke in fact. And I'm not trying to oppress anyone. I wanna be a part of this, but it sounds like I can't be because of the color of my skin."

He clarified that it wasn't against all white people. That there's lots of white people joining him. But then why not say what it is? That it's against the powers that be? That these are classist practices, most of the time inspired by racism but also clearly directly related to institutionalized classism?

Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive. They usually go hand in hand.

But it bothers me when it's oversimplified as White v. All for two reasons.

1. I'm white, and I don't wanna be against all, damnit.

2. I think it takes our eye off the ball when it comes to another huge cause of oppression - classism.

One more example:

A girl I was good friends with in college entered the country illegally with her family and picked strawberries for less than minimum wage in her youth. Now, she was at UC Berkeley getting her degree in sociology.

She took issue with the conditions of the workers on the fields, as any person should. She argued that it was white people that made her family live that way. "The people running the fields were white and the people who buy the product are white".

I then proceeded to ask her whether she now buy fruits from supermarkets, which of course she admitted. "Then isn't the issue more complicated than white vs. all?" I asked.

It's not that her anger was unjustified. In fact, there's all too much reason to be upset over the conditions that immigrants live under in this country. We essentially have a third world labor force sitting amongst us, working 16 hours a day to survive so that we can put strawberries on our ice cream.

But the people who run the system, the powers that be, choose the conditions those people live under and the prices to sell the fruit for. They choose to lower prices at the expense of their workers and hire families that have no choice. They are the ones that promulgate a merciless system of economic slavery. White, black, green and orange people are consumers of it because we live in that system, not because we created it. And all colors are in those positions of power. For historical reasons, race does closely correlate with class, but that doesn't mean race is always the single cause.

I want to emphasize that I'm not at all saying racism doesn't play a role in all of this. I'm also not saying at all that other policies aren't primarily influenced by racism.

Of course they are. Racism is everywhere. But sometimes, in my opinion, the root of the cause is classism. And I feel left out and frankly heart-broken when I'm told what side I'm on, particularly when every bone in my body is so against the side deemed "White".

I want to note that I'm not referring to anything specific nor responding to anyone specifically. It's just a sensitive sentiment I have in my experience talking about race, and our class broaches the subject quite a bit. I don't have any discussion from class in mind. I definitely do believe that the Trayvon Martin case is a clear case of racism. Not referring to that. Just wanted to throw my sentiment into the ether.

-- KippMueller - 07 Apr 2012

I appreciated this post on the whole. I have one devil's advocate question for you: Do you think classism is why the people who run the system are making the fruit cheap, exploiting their workers, etc? Assuming they weren't classist, what would they do differently?

-- DavidHirsch - 07 Apr 2012

I think what allows it to happen is rooted in classism. Most of these workers work terrible hours for virtually no pay... making just enough to buy food. Most of them also can't unionize, either because it's not legal or because they're coerced into not doing so. These kinds of conditions once existed in America's middle class during the industrial revolution, and it caused mass protests and strikes and the creation of nation-wide unions.

But I think we have a mentality in this country that because of the "American Dream", anyone should be able to climb out of poverty and that those in poverty are therefore in some way deserving of it. And because of that, the lower class is treated as the undeserving.

I think that the people who run the farms are doing so with purely capitalist motives. But I suspect (and cannot prove) that if their workers spoke the same language, wore the same clothes and had the same favorite books, conditions would change. Plenty of companies regularly raise wages for workers simply to boost morale and create a positive corporate culture. I don't see that happening on these farms. In fact, the unions that represent farmers (at least in California) regularly fight any reforms that would better the living/working conditions of farm workers. I can't prove it, but I strongly attribute both the sentiment of the people who own the farms AND the reflected policy that keeps undocumented immigrants working in horrible conditions as products of classism (with a healthy dose of racism involved as well).

-- KippMueller - 08 Apr 2012

"But I suspect (and cannot prove) that if their workers spoke the same language, wore the same clothes and had the same favorite books, conditions would change." -- Kipp

Maybe. Although I imagine we'd find a different way to cast the workers as an "other." Perhaps one of the reasons that racism and classism often work hand-in-hand is because the ruling class needs a way to rationalize treating the working class poorly. It's much easier to do that if you view the workers as an inferior race. A different race, though, is probably more of a sufficient cause than a necessary one.

-- SanjayMurti - 08 Apr 2012

That's really what I'm getting at. When you say we'd find another way to cast the working class as "other", that's exactly my point. That whatever the differences we claim exist between the workers and rulers (whether we claim it's race or gender, religion or certainly education level), it really always comes back to ruling class finding ways to distinguish themselves from the working class.

And the different race thing as sufficient but not necessary is totally true. It can be a sufficient cause of discrimination, but it's not always around. There's plenty of poor white people working in shitty conditions for rich white people. So other "otherness" is found to distinguish. But in that case, that's smoke and mirrors.

-- KippMueller - 08 Apr 2012

"I spoke with one of the guys who said that after the rally. I told him, "I was totally with you, really pumped about the issues, and then you alienated me. I don't get that. As far as I know, I'm not in much of a position of power. I'm pretty damn broke in fact. And I'm not trying to oppress anyone. I wanna be a part of this, but it sounds like I can't be because of the color of my skin."

Three points on this:

1) The notion that a criticism of racial power inequalities must not alienate the people at the top of the hierarchy is suspect. I don't think that whoever this person was should have to accommodate you.

2) The fact that you aren't trying to oppress anyone does not absolve you -- you benefit from the power system regardless of whether you actively participate in its reinforcement. That is enough for you to fall within the class of people that deserve criticism. I don't know who the speaker was so I can't speak for him/her personally, but the way the argument usually goes is that the fact that you are being criticized is not a personal attack but a reminder that you are complicit in a racist power structure so long as you are not actively fighting it.

3) You can be a part of "this," by admitting your participation, feeling bad about it, and doing whatever you can to lessen the gap. But the first step is admitting your complicity and not trying to escape criticism by saying that you're not "trying to oppress anyone."

In his article "Black and White," Robert Jensen puts it I think as best as any:

"So when I ask white people -- including myself -- to think about our own complicity in racism, I don't mean to suggest all whites are KKK members or sympathizers. When I talk about the racism that lingers in me, I mean not only the attitudes and behaviors that the culture in which I was raised taught me, but also the tendency to want to ignore the ramifications of race that are all around me. That's why I so often talk not about racism but white privilege -- the advantages that come to white people who live in a white-supremacist culture. To be antiracist is to acknowledge that privilege and take one's place in the political struggle against it."

-- PrashantRai - 08 Apr 2012

My point was that the issues he was discussing at the rally were not racial power inequalities, so he wasn't alienating the people "at the top" at all. He was alienating based on race when the issues he was discussing were class-based. He alienated me, conflating me with the powers that be.

I'm not denying the existence of white privilege at all. This post has nothing to do with that. I feel like I said twenty times in the post that I recognize well that racism exists and I completely agree that white privilege exists and that it's shitty and unfair.

I'm talking about the sources of discriminatory policy, not about whether race or white privilege exist and influence the world. At least in my view, you're conflating the concepts in the way that I'm writing about. I'm saying classism plays a powerful role in discriminatory politics, and you're responding by saying I should recognize that race does. But no one is arguing it doesn't. I'm saying that there's more than one source of discrimination in this country, and that sometimes we only point to racism as the source when it is only part of the problem.

I wasn't asking him for "accommodation". I was letting him know that people of all backgrounds agree with him, and that the issues he was discussing were classist issues that correlate with race.

Who's trying to "escape criticism"? I get that racism exists and that white privilege exists. But assuming that I'm complicit and guilty in this entire scheme for my being born this way, what exactly is your point? That until I rise in arms, I can't argue that classism exists and that it is oftentimes the root of discriminatory policy?

Does arguing this automatically mean I'm dodging bullets? I can't make this point because of the color of my skin?

How do you know what my motivations are for posting this? That I'm trying to absolve myself of anything?

I'm sorry for sounding defensive, but it's a heavy accusation to suggest I wrote this to absolve myself of any guilt in this world and not because I believed it to be true.

-- KippMueller - 08 Apr 2012

Kipp,

I, like, Prashant, was also rubbed the wrong way by your initial post. I can’t speak to what the speaker you referred to was saying because I wasn’t there. You might well be right that his speech was oversimplifying. I also agree that race and class are too often conflated in this country. But for people who are poor AND people of color, these issues might as well be two sides of the same coin because the ways in which these identities intersect is going to position them, socio-economically, in a way that is separate and unique from not being a beneficiary of one or the other (race or class privilege). I also think it’s reductive to expect people who experience an intersection of multiple forms of discrimination to only refer to one or the other when discussing discriminatory policies, because it is precisely how these forms interrelate that’s going to inform the overall impact of certain policies on them. Thus, to say you are uncomfortable or feel “alienated” by the way some people have chosen to frame that reality does sound a little off-putting, and very much like the expectation of someone who unconsciously expects to be accommodated by, if not the center, of all dialogue, especially as there are plenty of spaces that exist to discuss class or gender, or any other system of oppression, absent the consideration of race.

-- RumbidzaiMaweni - 08 Apr 2012

I guess that makes sense. But I'm saying these particular spaces were heavily influenced by classism in my opinion, and yet the concept of classism was never even broached as a reason. And it felt wrong to discuss them only as an issue of race.

I would discuss classism absent race or any other consideration if I could. The reason I brought it up in the context of race is that the two are very often complementary, as you said. It's very difficult to find a space that exists to discuss class in which race doesn't come into play, which is why I think classism gets lost in the conversation. So I brought up these examples as times in which I felt classism played a larger role than what was recognized.

I honestly don't feel like I was saying it to accommodate myself, but rather because I didn't think it was a fair characterization of the root issue being discussed. I get that because I'm white, it's going to be pretty hard to convince anyone of that, but I'll just say that's at least what I'm consciously aware of as my motivation.

Obviously, I know it's a super touchy subject and don't mean to off-put. Sorry for that. I don't like to off-put at all. But I also wrote that I felt alienated, knowing that I'm not supposed to say that as a white guy and not really caring because regardless of whether I'm supposed to say it or not, it's just how I felt.

Rumbi, as far as the interrelation point of race and class... couldn't agree more on that. I just would like to see both discussed. When you say it's the interrelation of the two that is the cause, I'm totally on board with that. I want to emphasize I'm absolutely not saying race isn't part of the equation. I'm just saying there's another variable that's too often forgotten.

I would want to hear specifics on both race-based AND class-based discriminatory policies. And if they're discriminatory policies motivated primarily by racism, I'm obviously on-board to see their demise. But I just care a lot also about the subject of class. And I'd like to see it exposed for what it is more often.

-- KippMueller - 08 Apr 2012

Thank you for starting this topic, Kipp.

While Rumbi's point about the particular experience of people who are both poor and people of color is totally valid, I don't think it's incompatible with Kipp's sentiments. The consistent conflation of race and class ignores the plight of a significant portion of the population that is poor and white. According to a 2010 count, 14% of poor people are white and 36% are black. While there is certainly a much larger percentage of poor and black people, there are still about 27 million poor white people. (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=1&cat=1&ind=14) I don't think you can fairly compare the experiences of poor white people and poor black people, but I don't see why we should delegitimize the struggles of poor white people solely because they have white privilege on their side. (Scroll down to illustrative examples of white privilege - http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html)

"2) sometimes it's really alienating in an unfair way." -Kipp

I think that the responses (and accusations) that your original post provoked support this view. Like you, I'm trying to figure out how to be noncomplicit about injustice, but it's discouraging when you have to defend your good intentions.

-- MichelleLuo - 08 Apr 2012

Totally agreed, thanks Michelle. Just to be clear, I really had no intentions with this post to even allude to the poor white population. I just wanted to try to isolate issues that affect the poor population, absent race, but also point out that race is so inextricably linked with class that it's hard to distinguish the two. In San Francisco, I remember multiple bus raids where police would stop the bus and check everyone's tickets. I doubt they raided offices without warrants in the financial district often for illegal behavior. And while these raids certainly disproportionately affected minorities, they were absolutely blatant in their classism. And I wish we'd point to them and say that yes, it very well could have been influenced by racism, but the classism is written on the wall!

But classism isn't really conceptually important, it seems. We don't really take apart policies for their classism very often. When we discussed literacy tests in Con Law, we talked about whether they had disparate impact based on race and could therefore be found unconstitutional. I talked with Professor Greene after class, asking whether one could argue that they were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because they unfairly discriminated against people based on class (education level). He said that just wasn't a concept really cared about by our legal system. That's really what I'm reacting to. Anyways, talking everyone's ears off. I'll let it be. Thanks for comments, all!

-- KippMueller - 08 Apr 2012