Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: defining racism -- Laura on compassi Message-ID: <28200431@inmet.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Dec-85 00:04:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200431 Posted: Wed Dec 25 00:04:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Dec-85 01:05:48 EST References: <336@l5.UUCP> Lines: 91 Nf-ID: #R:l5:-33600:inmet:28200431:000:4727 Nf-From: inmet!janw Dec 25 00:04:00 1985 [Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780 or amd!}!ubvax!tonyw] >... most modern racism has little to do with >frustration at all. >If companies screen out blacks from entry-level jobs because many >blacks lack work skills or because the average US black performance on >educational tests is lower than whites, these motivations show either >a bad understanding of how statistics apply to individuals or a pragmatic >understanding of the high costs of interviewing. Since this kind >of screening is a labeling of individuals according to skin color, >it's a classical racist activity. You've named a genuine exception to the frustration theory, though I don't believe companies have a screening procedure like this. It would be liable to cause a terrible scandal when someone blew the whistle. The *opposite* kind of racial screening is widely practiced (the affirmative action). I agree that this is a racist practice; but it does not proceed from a racist *atti- tude*. I don't believe, though, that this is "most" or most dangerous form of, racism. "A bad understanding of how statistics apply to individuals or a pragmatic understanding of the high costs of interviewing" are relatively weak causes for action and relatively easy to overcome. Mass feelings, not rational mis- calculations of a few executives, are the danger. >If a company rejects a black as a salesman in the South, for an entry >level job, does frustration lead it to do so? Maybe its customers >could be expected to not like blacks, and the company is afraid >that dislike would reflect on it and its products. Pure racism, >to me. Now that is *not* a true exception. That is *reflected* racism. As soon as southern customers change their attitude towards black salesmen, companies will follow suit. Here, frustration is still the root cause. >Was the paternalism of Gone With the Wind a consequence of frustration >and hatred? Or just common opinion about the appropriate place for >blacks? Racism again. Not *just* opinion, but opinion with strong emotional underpin- ning. Rationalizatioons for slavery were invented increasingly as the South felt greater need to defend it. Attitude came first, opinion afterwards. I've never seen the movie you mention but I read the book (long ago) and I thought it was a gross idealiza- tion of real southern attitudes. The peak of Southern racism was probably reached at the time of Reconstruction. Here, frustration as root cause is evident; and they never fully recovered. An interesting analogy is French xenophobia. According to Ana- tole France (a well-known writer), it dates to the Franco- Prussian war. Before that, foreigners were very welcome. But the French never lived down the humiliating debacle of 1870. The Dreyfus affair was another characteristic result. In Germany, Jews were made a scapegoat for the Versaille treaty. Now, this is *the* classical case of racism at work, and frustra- tion is an obvious cause. >If a black family comes into a neighborhood and common wisdom is that >the movement of black families precedes larger movements and eventual >rundown of a community and spread of crime, is resisting that family >a sign of frustration and hatred? Racism again. Analyze it: *why* larger movement. I assume a middle-class neigh- borhood. The first black families coming are middle class; they don't run down the community. But, because of racism, some whites start to sell; others *anticipate* this reaction; prices go down, and the downward spiral begins. Again, reflexive racism. Substi- tute a non-racial group (e.g. a professional one) most of whose members are poor. One member moves in - no stampede follows - no room for poorer group members - no spiral. Eliminate racial dislike, and it will be the same with race. >I'd contend that the only racism the above theory might explain is >the resentment-against-the-world-as-a-whole type of racism characteristic >of the KKK or Aryan Nations -- not unimportant, but not pervasive either. *Very* pervasive, especially in various ethnic neighborhoods. KKK and AN are just extreme representatives, the tail of the bell curve - not pervasive by definition. Jimmy Carter won the 1976 nomination in part because of a well-chosen phrase about *ethnic purity* - for which he then apologized, was publicly forgiven by Rev. King Sr. etc. - but the point had been made. Or take the last Chicago mayoral elections - race-driven on both sides. Finally, take your own example with salesmen in the South. Where does that customer attitude (enough of it to influence company policy) come from? Same feelings that, in a much stronger dose, fuel the KKK. Jan Wasilewsky