On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Alan Rudy wrote:
> At the same time, I side with Doug and Reed in their analysis of the
> political futility of the vast majority of institutionalized and many many
> movement efforts to combat racism pure and simple. What's most confusing to
> me, and I think to Ravi, is that absolutism of Reed's argument. On the one
> hand, he wants to acknowledge that racism-as-prejudice still exists while
> simultaneously saying that its existence is politically unimportant and
> ought not to be anyone's focus.
What does it mean to have it as your "focus"? I just don't get it.
Do you think that either Adolph or I am unaware of "structural racism"? But even that phrase - where does it get you? The racial wealth disparity, for example, exists because of generations of inheritance disparities - white people, even of modest means, were more likely 20, 40, 60 years ago to own houses and have savings than black people. (And go further back, black people were property.) But having made this point, what then? Do you join the philanthropists in promoting thrift campaigns and financial planning? Or do you work to make income less unequal, housing more affordable, and social supports more generous?