Our Hidden Conversations: What Americans Really Think About Race and Identity

Our Hidden Conversations: What Americans Really Think About Race and Identity by Michele Norris

The book started with the "race card project". People were asked to send back 6 words describing how they felt about race. Then additional anecdotes were added. The book is a mixed bag that goes on too long. It is interesting how people get wrapped up in some notions about race that were given to them, yet fight against others. White is viewed as a "pure" race, while others are viewed as diluted this purity. It feels society should have moved on from that long ago. There were some cases that talked about how they were the "non-white" race before but are now considered "white". Is talking about race causing the problems with race? After all, race is a social construct. Government classifies people in buckets, so those buckets get an identity. A century ago, people saw themselves as Irish, Italian, etc. Now those are just "white", and there is no box to check to identify as those. Will we get that way with others? There is talk about the US being majority-minority by some date. But hasn't the country been majority-minority for decades if not centuries now? As more mixing takes place people it will make less sense to try to categorize.

The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics

The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics by Richard Hanania

The origins of woke is a case study in unintended consequences. What started out as civil rights legislation to end Jim Crow segregation in the south ended up encompassing many more "rights" and "identities". Many groups exist only because of the regulations. The many groups lumped together in "Hispanic" have little in common other than the Spanish language. (And even that can be very different.) However, they are combined together into the "Hispanic" classification. New identities have sprung up. Many more people have disabilities. Trial lawyers have become some of the greatest beneficiaries. Should they win against companies, they can collect fees. If they lose, the company cannot collect legal fees. Thus, companies are often willing to settle even somewhat frivolous cases.

Title IX is a bizarre case of unintended consequences on top of others. Original protection for women was added to civil rights legislation an attempt to scuttle it. It stayed. Then later through judicial fiat, equity of roster spots was required in college sports. It did not matter if women wanted to compete or not. (In fact, cheerleading was declared not a sport, despite it being something that women wanted.) A strict equality was enforced and many men's sports were dropped. Interestingly, this was applied to sports, yet not academic or arts programs. (Perhaps they were prescient in guessing how sports would dominate society.)

Judges are not the only ones to expand the definition. There are many executive orders that apply to policies for government contractors. There are no quotas, but many things that might as well be quotas. It is expected that people match their local population that can be even worse than quotas. There is a lot of "good intentions" in much of the policies. However, it has resulted in a whole "human resources" industry that is now dependent on the existing policies. There has been an industry built up around the policies making them difficult to take away without sound heartless. Yet the policies provide more difficult than benefit. The solution is hard to find.

This Great Hemisphere: A Novel

This Great Hemisphere: A Novel by Mateo Askaripour

In the future, the world is divided into hemispheres. In the northwest hemispheres there are "invisibles" which have a see through skin and are a lower class. This is a nice double meaning as it ties to racism. The world is somewhat of a reverse steam-punk future. There are new technologies, but also many traditional technologies. Some things like cell phones are looked at as old tech. The drama centers around the death of a leader. The leader is respected in a somewhat religious way. The people try to hunt down the killer and use that as an excuse to attack invisibles. There are all sorts of things that go on, with people acting a lot like they would today, despite a far futuristic setting. The book goes on for much longer than is needed.

Black Dignity

Black Dignity: The Struggle against Domination by Vincent W. Lloyd

This book feels like an enumeration of events in search of an underlying philosophy. The closest I can get from it is the the theme that Blacks will always be oppressed. Everyone else can become "white", but Blacks cannot. Slavery was just one instance of the oppression. Additional different identities of Blacks (gender, sexuality, etc.) can lead to greater oppression. While there are legitimate causes for concerns, the work seems to be much more about justifying existing behavior than finding a way forward. There was a complaint that Black intellectuals were no longer able to maintain their positions based on emotion instead of academic rigour. Then towards the end, Black intellectuals are viewed as eventually becoming necessary after a revolution. There is a desire to fight the system that enslaves. Yet, identity is driven by the experience of slavery and the fight against master system. Multiculturalism, white allies and all western institutions are all part of the problem. Even many previous Black activism is criticized. It would be interesting to see how conflict would be handled in this post-revolutionary utopia.

Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness

Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness by W. Paul Reeve

Mormons today are viewed as being very "white". in the past they were viewed as being of an inferior race (even as they were "whiter" then than they are today.) This book explores the odd injection of "race" within non-genetic areas. It uses the cartoon of "Elder Berry" and his multi-racial offspring to explore the view of Mormons to the American public.

At first the religion was viewed as "different" than other mainline protestant religions. The different beliefs and practices resulted in a shunning. There were also economic and political implications as Mormons occupied land and tended to vote as a block. Later they adopted polygamy which gave people more ammunition for haring them. They were viewed as a degenerate people that had evolved backwards. They were lumped with blacks and other minorities as being "inferior".

The church dropped polygamy and Utah became a state. Then they moved to become more acceptable to "white America". The role of blacks in the priesthood was reduced, with the "seed of Cain" doctrine used to prevent blacks from holding the priesthood. The book explores much of the history of the arguments used. (There seemed to be a lot of hearsay and selective sources.) Eventually, the LDS church was seen as being very white. It finally achieved the goal of "whiteness" just as whiteness was going out of style in the civil rights era. Now the church has enabled everyone in leadership positions and is widespread throughout the world. It celebrates mixed marriages. Yet, it fights the perception that it is just a "white" church.

Fighting for Democracy: Black Veterans and the Struggle Against White Supremacy in the Postwar South

Fighting for Democracy: Black Veterans and the Struggle Against White Supremacy in the Postwar South by Christopher S. Parker

This is an academic work that originally started out as the author's doctoral thesis. It feels like half the text consists of references and commentary on the sources. The author uses interviews and survey data to explore how experience in the military impacted black servicemen in the fight for civil rights.

Blacks had served in the military from the time of the revolutionary war. The book provides narratives of those that had served on all wars. However, the research focus was on those that served during World War II and Korea. The military still enforced a form of Jim Crow, with separate black units. However, this become somewhat untenable. There became some relaxing of Jim Crow out of resource constraints. During Korea, the military was legally integrated, but still had some remnants of Jim Crow in practice.

Veterans were exposed to different race relations in the military. When overseas, the locals typically treated them as Americans, without distinguishing their race. They also had more balanced relationships with the other GIs. (Though still with extensive Jim Crow.) They developed strong black republicanism and respect for their country. They saw that they were capable and treated better and expected that when they came home. They were disappointed when they didn't see it. They were willing to speak out physically.

As a whole, black veterans were more conservative than the black populace, but much. more liberal than whites. They were more willing to be physically involved in the quest for racial integration. While they may have similar desires and views of the general populace, they were more willing to take risks to see it was carried out.

A Raisin in the Sun

 A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry

An African American family in Chicago get an inheritance and want to decide what to do with it. Grandma wants to get a house in a nice neighborhood. One of the adult sons wants to invest in a business. They decide to do a bit of both. Alas, somebody runs off with the business money. They do have the house. However, the neighborhood does not want them there. In a nice way, they offer to buy them out to keep the neighborhood white. The family thinks about it, but decides not to.

The play explores the subtle challenges of race and class in society. The family is concerned about how they will be seen by others, judging both those above them and those below them. Money may cause a change in material circumstances, but you are still left with your internal character.

Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America

John McWhorter zeroes in on the "wokism" that functions more like a religion than an attempt to improve society. Many subscribers to woke anti-racist ideology do it with a religious zeal. They have faith that their belief is correct. They cannot be debated. It is just "correct". Internal inconsistencies do not matter. Others that don't subscribe to their beliefs are either heretics or in need of conversion.  The missionary work is carried out in various ways. There are various "holy books" (such as "white fragility") and priests (such as black intellectuals.) Martyrs such as George Floyd are venerated. Followers must live by the creeds, remembering their original sin of racism.

This religion may help the followers feel good about themselves. It also provides a means of unity with others. At times (like George Floyd protests) it has become very popular. What it hasn't done much of is to improve lives. Visibility into police brutality and "defund the police" has resulted in a slight decline of police violence against blacks. However, it has also allowed an increase of black on black violence. In schools, the victims of student agressions are often of the same race and social group as the perpetrators. The victims now suffer more due to lack of punishment. Lower standards for minority college admissions has also led to students attending schools beyond their level, contributing to hire dropout and failure rates.

The woke evangelists work to seek out their converts and punish heretics. Seemingly innocent conversation can be deemed offensive and subject somebody to excommunication and ostracism. It doesn't matter if a person of color is actually offended. If the woke priesthood declares it offensive, they will issue the punishment. It also doesn't matter of the tenants are contradictory. (For example, we need diverse students in college to hear from diverse points of view, yet we should not expect students to communicate their viewpoints in class.) The woke "religion" continues to put non-whites in an inferior position.

It can be impossible to debate with adherents to the woke religion. Instead, they often must be skirted around to get real work done. The book proposes three things to help alleviate the black condition: end the war on drugs, teach reading through phonics and emphasize vocational education as an alternative to college. This is a succinct plan that provides tangible benefits.  

Goliath: A Novel

Goliath is part modern commentary and part science fiction. It is set in a near future east coast. The evnironment has gone to gone to pot. Those means have escaped, leaving a (mostly black) population to suffer at the mercy of the aid of others. Others come to tour the poor American cities. A college educated black man gets arrested and starts a prison rebellion. The book could only be written by a black author (otherwise, they would be cancelled for the language.)

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, 10th Anniversary Edition

The war on drugs has led to the mass incarceration of poor blacks (especially men). This has happened in spite of drug use being fairly similar across races. The author presents this as a new means of segregation. Rather than being explicit, racism is often hidden in behind other seemingly well-meaning activities. Being tough on drug use sounds good. However, police and prosecutors have discretion, and would often use it to go after poor minorities, rather than well-to-do whites. Tough on crime laws, such as forfeiture and minimum sentences would critically harm those least able to defend themselves. Even a plea bargain could lead to a criminal record which hurts job prospects and possibility of government assistance.

The book paints a very bleak picture. The country has gone through multiple attempts at racial equality. Each one seems to have resulted in different means of underhanded ways to keep races separate. The author ends by saying that we still need to acknowledge race and not try to be colorblind. However, we also need to avoid an us vs. them to have everybody together. Blacks were put down to help the poorest whites. Improved race relations requires everyone to come up together.

The book had some good points, but is very repetitive. Things have changed since it was written. (Though perhaps that is me. I tend to think of a drug addict as a white guy, while author cited that most people pictured them as black.) Defund the police movements have come, but have not really addressed the problem. Ironically, there is great pushback in regulations that would be very colorblind. (For example, red light cameras.) Piecing back together communities that have been ripped apart by past actions is not a simple process. It requires hard work on all sides. Merely throwing money at problems will not provide solutions. We also need to be careful that the next "fix" doesn't result in a worse negative outcome. The end of redlining resulted in restrictive zoning. School integration caused a mass exodus to the suburbs. While forcing racial harmony has not worked, nudging can continue to help.

Afropean: Notes from Black Europe

Afropean explores the lives of the "outsiders" in Europe. While the focus is on blacks, the plights of Arabas and other "outsiders" is covered. The author takes us through many places with different views of race and ethnicity. Even in the same country, there can be very different experiences (such as Paris vs. Marseilles and Amsterdam vs. Rotterdam). There are also historical interludes and trips to places such as Ethiopia and New York City. 

In many places in Europe, blacks reside in the immigrant underclass. There is an odd relationship of partial toleration. In France, everyone is considered "French", yet black French are often looked down on. The police will regularly sweep through the vendors in Paris, only for the vendors to go back to their old locations. Most cities have the "poor neighborhood" that is filled with blacks. There is a separate culture there, not quite African and not quite European. It is Afropean.

Caste (Oprah's Book Club): The Origins of Our Discontents

Caste can be a very nefarious form of differentiation in society. People are born into their caste and have little chance of leaving. The origin of the caste does not have to have any specific rationale behind it. The book discusses three primary caste systems: the Indian caste system, the US racial caste system and the Nazi Aryan system. In all the systems, it is often the lower caste individuals that help keep the even-lower ones in order. In extreme cases, there is a dehumanization of the lowest caste individuals.

The primary focus is on the US system. Whites are the "upper-caste". Blacks are the lowest caste. Others are in between. Even within the castes, there are gradations. The author provides anecdotes of the negative impacts on the lower and upper castes. However, some of these can be difficult to tease apart. In one example, an Austin bomber first killed a black man. Initially there were questions as to whether it was an accident or terrorism. Only after white people were targeted did they hunt down the suspect. How much of this delay was due to the "lower caste" and how much was it due to questioning isolated incidents? It is hard to tell, but probably a little bit of both.

The definition of the lower caste is often fluid. In America, "black" has had various definitions. Today, it is pretty much "how you identify". There have been various laws that defined it previously. It may be a few generations. It may be "a drop of African blood". The Nazis were a little tighter with Jews, and generally required a grandparent. Practicing the religion would also get you in. In America, however, Jews were "white".

The book is a little vague about what to do about caste. The standard bits of the "higher caste people need to work hard to stop it" are given. Humanization is also important. She gives an example of a plumber that did not expect a black women in the white neighborhood and refused to do much. After she started talking and relating to him, he became very friendly and helpful. The author laments that it is often the "lower caste" that has to bend over. (And she gives examples of blacks being castigated for being too cultured.) In reality it does need everyone. If we are constantly calling out racial affronts, we may see a "perceived" balance, but are really just seeing a veneer hiding internal anger. Instead, we need to realize we are all just people.

I wonder how the individualistic culture relates to the concern about caste. If people have a strong group identity with roles and responsibilities, do they really care what others are doing? It is a duty to your family and group to continue on the path. You have a distinct realm of possibilities that you can make the most out of. There may be aspiration to be like others, but an understanding that it is not possible. Were people generally content in that world maximizing potential in their sphere? Today, there is a strong ethos of individual empowerment. The groups which one belongs to is seen as a "choice". Being brought down by accident of birth is seen as a bug in the system and leads to misery.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the argument is ignoring class. It is stated that poor whites outnumber poor blacks. This lower class is near the bottom of the social latter. The only thing that had been propping them up is the feeling that they were better than other races. Now they don't have that anymore. Even worse, they have people telling them they are bad and wrong. How do we bring up the lower caste without bringing down the lower class? It was often the "just above the lowest rung" that would inflict punishment on the lowest. We can easily end up with a situation where the now empowered lower caste people are now being even more negative towards whoever now resides at the bottom. True victory can only be obtained when physical appearance is disconnected from physical worth. The assimilation of "whiteness" in the US in that sense can be considered a huge success. Can it be done society-wide? Or was it only possible by having a "non-white" foil?

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America

The Color of Law argues that racism was entrenched in US law, not just the result of natural separation of people. The argument starts out very strongly, but fades to less-supported arguments. It also does little to account for what role personal decisions did play. There seems to be an underlying assumption that black people would prefer to live in an integrated neighborhood if given a chance. However, how much is that true? There does seem to be a desire for homogeneity that needs to be accounted for also. The strongest argument relates to the government backed mortgages. The government would only guarantee mortgages if the home was in an all white neighborhood. These restrictions ended up locking Blacks out of housing opportunities. When they could find housing, the rates were often more expensive. This became even worse with the post-war housing boom. The government would allow builders to take the backing for a the entire development if they would meet the criteria. The only way the home builder could build up the subdivision was if it prohibited blacks. The rationale for prohibiting non-whites was circular. If non-whites were allowed, the property values would go down. However, these would go down because they could not get cheaper mortgages. (In reality they would often go up because there was now more competition.) 

Some real estate agents took advantage of the situation and engaged in "block busting". They would try to make it appear that a neighborhood was turning black. They would sometimes even engage in subterfuge, advertising properties for sale to blacks in order to attract people to the neighborhood. The existing white owners would sell out at a low price, and the brokers would flip the property to a black family at a higher price. 

Public housing was also initially restricted to whites only. Initially government money was primarily used to get housing developed quickly at market rates. Separate housing would be constructed for blacks. However, there would often be cases of vacancies in white housing while there were waiting lists in black housing. "Integrated" housing was often a code word for black-only housing. Eventually, the government was primarily building low-income housing projects that targeted black populations in poor, primarily black communities. The "remedies" to housing discrimination were a new form of segregation.
Attempts to "work around" race restrictions have also led to under-handed ways to prevent blacks in neighborhoods. These have often resulted in net damage to the society at large. Roadway construction was used as a way to eliminate vast swaths of minority or integrated housing. These communities almost never were restored. Localities enacted various zoning restrictions to keep poor minorities out. These restrictions often required excessive minimum lot sizes or segregated usages. This has resulted in less walkable communities and limited housing stocks. 

The book then explores various secondary ways in which the government has encouraged segregation. Some are a stretch. (The IRS did not remove tax deductions of churches where the pastor advocated segregation.) Others have scary parallels to today. There were many cases of the police turning a blind eye to outright hostility towards a black family moving in to a previously white neighborhood. (Today, police are encourage to turn a blind eye towards protestors occupying blocks in Seattle or getting a little violent protesting police brutality. Just like in the past, the "society" has determined that the "positive" goals of the extra-legal activities justify not enforcing the law.)

I do wish the author would have explored the economic and personal-choice aspects of housing segregation. He is attempting to refute the argument that segregation has resulted natural from individual choices by presenting the ways that government has encouraged segregation. However, he does little to explore what way other factors are involved. What would things look like today if there had been no restrictive covenants in the past? The author criticizes middle class black communities because they are not integrated. However, would we have more of those communities if not for government-encouraged segregation?  The author spends a lot of time discussing the battles for integration in Milpitas, California. Today, however, both black and white populations there are small minorities as the city has an overwhelming Asian majority. 

Remedies for past discrimination are a tricky thing that the author saves for another argument. The money lavished on subsidized housing appears to be an abject failure. It has only encouraged more segregation. School integration schemes also only touch the surface of the issue. (After all, schools are segregated because the community is segregated.) Should we really be targeting integrated communities? Would people prefer to live in a community that mirrors the larger metropolitan area or would they prefer an enclave of people "similar to themselves"?

 

White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism

White Fragility is a book about race written by a liberal white woman primarily to other liberal whites. The author is in the busy of "diversity training." She encounters many "well meaning" white groups that have difficulty talking about racism. (This reminds me of the strange case in the city of Seattle where there were separate diversity classes for those identifying as white and non-white.) She does acknowledge in passing that the definition of "white" and "non-white" have been subject to change (with an example of an Italian). However, the focus is on those that are identified as "white" today.
The key takeaway is that "racism" has become demonized so badly that we have lost the real ability to make improvements. Almost nobody would go out lynching somebody merely because of their skin color. However, nearly everyone still has some internal racism. "Bad neighborhood" is often code word for "black neighborhood.". Similarly, quality of schools is often directly related to upper-income, white population. Many companies have limited minority representation. However, there exist many programs of affirmative action and equal employment. Alas, these lead to many people to complain about "reverse discrimination".
Discussions about racism often become dominated by white people. The author especially decries the "white woman's tears". The crying of a white lady has lead to lynchings of black men in the past. When somebody cries in response to a perceived racial injustice, this often leads to the focus being more on her than the injustice. In the book, the author gave a number of examples of how, even in "diversity committees", the conversation got turned to the needs of the emotional person rather than the racial issue that was being addressed. Today some of the biggest sources of racism come from the "well meaning". They try to "improve" the lives of those of a different race without fully understanding them.
Much of the advice given falls can be described as "getting along well with others." Don't use caricatures or overall generations of other people's needs. Understand where people are coming from and the differences. Acknowledge that you have ways to improve and be willing to accept criticism. The criticism part is probably the most difficult due to the hyper-sensitivity to "racism". Ironically, the diversity training industry has probably done more to foment this as everyone is afraid of being "racist". Yet, to really fight racism, we need people to admit they have some racism and be ready to make it go away. I don't think the giant "mea culpas" on social media are generally helpful, nor are the blanket "I am not racist" statements. It must be subtle acknowledgement of shortcomings and willingness to improve.

So You Want to Talk About Race

So You Want to Talk About Race was written by somebody from Seattle, who sees everything through a racial privilege lens. The book hits all the Seattle terminology and grievances. I just don't care for these arguments. I'd much rather have the efforts spent on combating oppression and car-centric transportation.
In the argument, the world is divided into two groups "straight neurotypical cis etc. white male oppressors" and "everyone else", where everyone else is primarily "people of color". Racism is defined to only be possible when coming from people in power. Thus, only "white people" can be racist, because they have the power. Though, how do you define power? In Chicago, the mayor is a LGBTQ black woman and "people of color" hold the majority of the city council seats. I doubt that this would be used to argue that white people in Chicago can't be racist. Perhaps you could argue that the big companies are still dominated by whites. Perhaps Silicon Valley in Northern California would be a better example. There are many cities run by Asians, with companies also run by Asians with an Asian-majority workforce. There are whites finally exempt from being racist? Or perhaps we need to carry it out to the world. Since European culture dominates the world, only Europeans can be racist. What about places like Malaysia that give preference to Malays over Chinese? It just makes for a confusing argument.
She gives some of the typically arguments that "people of color" are universally oppressed due to their race. She acknowledges that there are many other groups that are discriminated against, but sees race as the most important. She argues that she lives in a white supremacist world where she suffers from endless microagressions and discrimination. However, she fails to acknowledge that she comes from a huge position of privilege that lets her make her arguments and seek for some sort of non-oppression. She groups people as "people of color" and "white people". She had an "Obama" upbringing, raised by a white mother with an absent African father, however, identifies exclusively with "blackness". She does acknowledge that even in her "people of color" community, they excluded other people that were not "elite" like her. From there, she assumes to speak for all non-white people.
The author spends time discussing "intersectionality". The social justice movement wants to make sure that all "intersections" of groups are properly covered. (Of course this is only groups that the movements have acknowledged.) It thus makes for confusion as they attempt to "speak" for many other people (while at the same time excluding others because they are "oppressors." It all just sounds very Seattle.
One thing she seems to get right is that "racism" is a way that people make themselves feel better. If there is somebody lower than them, they will feel better about themselves. Similarly, if there is somebody "higher" than them, they will feel upset - especially if they feel they should be able to aspire to that position. If we erase all concept of race, people will still find a way to separate themselves. The case of European immigrants is an interesting study. There was originally heavy segregation based on different countries of origin. British were at the top. Southern Europeans and slavs were down near the bottom. Post-famine Irish were the dregs. These days, they are all just "white", even though there are various ranges of physical features. The offspring of a Brit and an Italian don't become "Italian". However, any African ancestry trumps all to make somebody "black". Why is this so?
The author throws in a discussion on Asians. They are both a model minority and oppressed. It all comes down to group definition. (Alas, the same is not done for whites, which are just used as a homogeneous foil.)
The cultural appropriation discussion is also rife with conflicts. An African-themed bar is considered bad. (Ok, I'll buy that. I'd much rather have good Ethiopian food than burgers.) Wearing sacred Native American headdress is also bad. (No problem there.) However, artists such as white rappers are viewed negatively because they have "appropriated" an art form that originated in West African chanting. That seems to be stretching things a bit. Should we argue black appropriation of McDonalds? (oh wait, it is fine to appropriate form the "dominate" race.) The author also tries to appropriate the legacy of slavery to her experience. Yet, she did not claim any slave ancestry. Why should she appropriate some culture but others not?
There are issues with race in America. However, separating out the "us vs. them" does not help things. There will always be differentiation. Some groups will be better at different things. Perhaps the biggest problem is that we have a culture that expresses value in a certain types of achievement. People that cannot achieve feel discouraged and look to sidestep the system. This leads to more discouragement and continued problems. Yelling at others for being racist just adds to the fire. The book ends by describing a fight against a police station in Seattle. It just happened to be near an area known for criminal activity. There were also a large number of people of color (including many African immigrants) in the area who were eager to have the station built. However, many residents (primarily in other parts of the city) fought against it due to some of the amenities (like a Yoga room.) Instead, some of the money was spent on public housing. This may show another symptom of the crime. Huge efforts are spent to get crumbs of money that only help a small number of people of color. At the same time, zoning and building codes present so many challenges to building housing, that most new housing built is "luxury". Why not fight to eliminate these regulations so that more housing appropriate for the community can be built? And calling out a "school to prison pipeline" doesn't help education. Instead, we need to rethink the whole structure. There is a tendency brewing now to implement a "lowest common denominator". Seeing a disparity in opportunities for different racial groups, the "special" ones that whites use are dismantled to give everyone an equal opportunity. Why not instead focus on differing educational experiences. Some people have time and resources to complete advanced education. Others need to work as soon as possible. What about co-op vocational opportunities? And what about practical coursework like personal finance, cooking and household skills. The children of professors will have distinct advantages over the children of a poor single-mom who did not finish high school. Often children will have an educational experience similar to their parents. As a society, we would do well by nudging the least educated up a bit, without hurting the top. Some racial groups tend to occupy the bottom. Racism may be part of the problem. However, there are many other factors involved.

Invisible Man

A black boy starts out with idealistic views of society, but finds himself beat down by society. Both blacks and whites accept the status quo of society. He gets a scholarship to a black college, but finds himself in big trouble when he takes a white trustee to see how the "other side" lives. The trustee claims that the boy is his "destiny", but is visibly upset at seeing the continued conditions of squalor in the black community. He still maintains his idealism as he is sent to make his way in the big city. However this is shattered when he discovers that his letters of introduction say that he is a persona non grata at his college.

He then has numerous experiences in the city, and becomes primarily involved with "the brotherhood". Eventually, he even has a falling out there, and becomes "invisible". Eventually, he meets the trustee that caused his trouble. He introduces himself as the trustee's "destiny", yet the trustee fails to identify him.

He realizes that he is being used as a pawn by others to achieve their goals. When his goals are in sync with their's, he feels great. But problems occur when they start to diverge.

There is an obvious statement being made of race relations and unfulfilled promises. However, this is only one symptom of the underlying problem. In a large society, the "goals" of the group are often set by a few strong individuals. These goals may be shared by some people, but rarely does one person share everything. When the initial focus is on the areas of strong mutual agreement, things go well. But what happens when we move down to the areas of less consensus? And what happens when "theory" and "practice" come in to conflict? It is easy to encourage others to "suffer" in order to bring up the underprivileged. But opinions change when that suffering is inflicted upon oneself. What is one without power to do? And how do you deal with conflicting forces for the same "ideal"?

Alas, the narrator here simply gives up, leaving many of the large questions unanswered.

Racial profiling and dentists

The Mercury News reports that 100s are protesting alleged "racial profiling" in Palo Alto. Meanwhile, a dentist is hauled away after one patient alleges that he fondled her (in an open practice with many people around in plain view.) In Palo Alto, there are not a a whole lot of black people. But there has been a recent surge in violent crime, much of it perpetrated by dark-skinned people. Thus, a dark-skinned person acting suspiciously in Palo Alto would have a much higher probability of being a criminal. Is this bad? Well, what if there is still only a 20% chance that the dark-skinned man is a criminal (versus a .001% chance that the Chinese woman is a criminal)? Would it still be preferable to wait until clearly suspicious activity is seen (even it means pouncing on the Chinese woman practicing Tai Chi?) Nobody likes being questioned by police. However, it is difficult for police to know exactly what a criminal looks like. How do they minimize the hits on the "wrong guy", while making sure that the "right guy" doesn't get away? Race is, after all, a fairly clearly identifiable characteristic. Denying it would only needlessly hamper crime prevention efforts (and may actually lead to additional false arrests.) Perhaps the solution would be to install surveillance cameras everywhere - then they would know exactly what the perpetrators looked like. (Though privacy would go out the window.)

The dentist case presents a similar case of 'guilty and proven innocent'. A dentist potentially loses his freedom and livelihood, all because of one accuser. The defense is next to impossible: "yes, he fondled me". "No I did not". Even witnesses could be problematic: "I did not see him do it"... "Well, he might have done it when I wasn't there." What is scary is that this looks very similar to a case in Davis. There a woman reported that the dentist had touched her inappropriately on multiple times. This poses a few questions: (why did she keep going back? How was it inappropriate? (Or was it inappropriate - could the patient just have been uncomfortable with the procedure?) What is also scary is that the accuser can remain totally anonymous, while the accused has his name dragged in public. (Recall the false accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case.) While it is important to prevent crimes from happening and encourage victims to come forth, anonymity also can lead to false accusations with little fear of negative consequences. Ideally, the dentist case should be resolved with a simple discussion. If he truly is a Seinfeld-type dentist, that continues with the behavior, then charges are warranted. If he was performing actions in the best interest of the patient, there may be was to do it in a less offensive manner, or even give the suggestion with concerns made apparent, only only perform it at the patient's insistence. Or they may squash privacy by setting up cameras to monitor every action.