this is an example of structural racism. the cops who behaved this way were black, white, hispanic, and asian.
why did they knock on the door and stand to the side so the tenant couldn't see who was at the door? because, in general, cops suspect every citizen of essentially being a criminal-in-waiting.
in a low- to middling-income housing development cops _can_ stand out of range of a peephole because the manmade geography -- the building design -- doesn't allow for "apartment homes" that enable people to see in or out from a front window. the doors are solid, no glass. it's cheaper without the glass and without the windows. there is no security guard at the gate who must buzz them up. that would cost money.
thus, a practice cops would happily use on _everyone_ if they could is largely used on low income people of color and whites because the geography -- the architecture -- is designed to save money, which ends up making it easy for cops to use this practice.
on teevee, how many times do cops bust into a _house_ or condo development or gated apartment community by standing off to the side so the occupant can't see outside? probably never because it's pretty hard to do. with a house,most people can see outside -- see the cop car in the driveway, there are windows near the front door, etc. same thing with condos -- at least around here. and this is definitely true about gated condo and apartment communities where you pay to have private security at a gate preventing people from getting through unannounced.
when our local group asked cops why they did this, they replied that of course they should. you never knew who was inside the home. they had to protect themselves lest the person inside came barrelling out the door guns blazing.
What's going on here is an institutional norm -- that of police operating as if every citizen is guilty of a crime; that is what cops do; that is how they operate no matter what folderol is said about what they're supposed to do -- is a racist norm because of the fact that the poor are disproportionately people of color. and the policy would *still* be a suckass policy if we were to make it so it was NOT the case that poverty was higher among people of color. in other words, if all we managed to do was make it so people of color and whites were proportionally represented in low-income housing designed as described above , then we wouldn't have solved the problem. we would still have cops engaging in the practice above because they think it is normal. because they would like to be able to visit _all_ homes this way. they view it as a necessity to protect themselves. they never know who's inside and what could happen to them.
the way the cops behave is considered normal, just the way it is, a necessity. that is where you look when you are looking at structural racism: what do people think is normal, a necessity, just the way it is, inevitable, the natural order of things.
attitudes don't disappear, no. attitudes and behavior of individuals matter but the issue isn't, in the final analysis, about what they think of biological race or what have you. it's what they think the ideal role of a cop is, what the rel. is between cop and citizen, and what the essential nature of a citizen is. in this case, citizens are all criminals or uncaught criminals.
you can apply same analysis to gender. The structure of the professional career is a good example. it tends to harm women now. for instance, the notion that we should spend most of our professional career working hardest during our 20s and 30s. This coincides with child-bearing years. We're working the most hours, with the most stress, and generally for the least amount of money. The system of professions as built on the old guild system. This "normal" career pattern, where you work hard in your 20s and 30s and then reap the rewards later is harder on women since women are typically seen as the ones who bear the burden of childcare.
but even if you were to make it so that men and women bore the burden of chilcare equally, you'd _still_ have a shitty system yes? you'd still be basing what's _normal_ on something that isn't god-given -- and that isn't ultimately good for anyone. with careers like law, medicine, academia there's no really good reason why people should work at apprenticeship pay in their twenties and thirties. there's no really good reason why dissertations and scholarly pubs must all be pumped out during those years in order to land jobs and secure tenure, in order to get partnerships, etc.
On a related note, at work, there's been some belt tightening b/c of the market. An edict down from on high: we must work strict work hours, no more flex time. That is, no more coming in an hour early and leaving an hour early. no more working through lunch in order to get to work later or leave earlier. no more coming in on saturdays, in order to get out early.
everyone is pissed about it, but it's especially difficult for the folks with children. The people who are taking the risk and defying the edict are women. Why? because of a host of factors such as the tendency for women to make less than their spouses, because of the tendency of women to be seen as the ones who should take on the burden of childcare -- such as being the one to pick up little punkin' from daycare. because because because...
the edict is seen as normal, just the way it is, people should work set hours so the boss can know who's working and who isn't and can know with a glance that, if someone's not at their desk, it's 'coz they're fucking off. to have flex time would mean you'd have to give the employee a benefit of a doubt.
so, to continue a bitch i'd made earlier, that is what _structural_ racism (and sexism) is about: it's about a mode of analysis that asks us to look at societal and institutional norms: what's expected, what is considered normal, what is taken-for-granted, what is seen as "just the way it is."
At 06:01 PM 3/10/2008, Carrol Cox wrote:
>I came across this on my harddisk today. Apparently the whole document
>is not available on line, or at least I couldn't find it. This mindless
>response of reporters should be incorporated in any account of stuctural
>racism, since it is not deliberated but merely "read off" from
>everything they read or have been allowed to think.
>
>Carrol
>
>Subject: [BRC-ANN] Quote of the Day: Kofi Natambu
>Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 05:43:04 -0400
>From: Art McGee <amcgee at igc.org>
>To: brc-announce at lists.tao.ca
>
>In addition, the often biased reporting of some tennis commentators on
>both television and in newspapers have created an atmosphere where the
>Williams sisters are subjected to such traditional racist mythology as
>the "powerful black athlete" who survives merely on "raw talent and
>intimidation," but never on strategic thought, finesse, or general
>intelligence. In fact all during the Open there were endless references
>to the "superior intellectual abilities and analytical prowess" of
>Martina Hingis over that of the "natural physical strength and intuitive
>powers of Venus and Serena." These absurd Bell Curve, and neo-fascist
>like comparisons were continually made despite the fact that Hingis is
>in reality a high school dropout whose only real interest since turning
>pro at age thirteen has been professional tennis, while both Venus and
>Serena are enrolled college students whose high school academic GPAs
>were in the 3.5-4.0 range, and who excelled in literature, science,
>history, math, and languages (both sisters are multilingual and fluent
>in French and Italian, much to the delight of their many European fans).
>
>In fact, part of Richard Williams genius has been his constant
>insistence from the beginning that education was far more important than
>sports for his daughters. This insistence on Venus and Serena being well
>rounded individuals who were much more than mere jocks was so strong
>that Mr. Williams took Venus and Serena off the junior tennis circuit
>for four years when they were ten and eight respectively so that they
>could seriously pursue their education. This was after Venus had amassed
>a phenomenal 63-0 mark on the junior tour. He did it because he "didn't
>want his kids to wind up like many of the other children on the tour who
>are dumb and don't know anything except tennis. Ironically, Mr. Williams
>was excoriated in a number of circles for allegedly stunting the
>athletic growth of his daughters, and is amazingly still criticized
>today by some for "holding his daughters back from acquiring the same
>tennis skills at the same pace as the other players" (even Tiger Woods's
>father, Earl, has made this ludicrous charge!).
>
>
>--Kofi Natambu
> "Venus Rises and Takes Tennis with Her"
> Ishmael Reed's Konch Magazine
> September 21, 2000
>
>http://www.ishmaelreedpub.com/natambu6.html
>
> >
>
>-30-
>
>[IMPORTANT NOTE: The views and opinions expressed on this
>list are solely those of the authors and/or organizations,
>and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official
>political positions of the Black Radical Congress (BRC).
>Official BRC statements, position papers, press releases,
>action alerts, and announcements are distributed exclusively
>via the BRC-PRESS list. As a subscriber to this list, you
>have been added to the BRC-PRESS list automatically.]
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)