Does the census perpetuate racism?

Perhaps because I was 11 in the last census and I was not paying much attention to media coverage back then, but I notice a lot more anti-census sentiment this time around. Some people argue the census is a violation of privacy, while others decry its financial cost and limited good effect. And then there are those who take issue with the race and ethnicity categories. We've already seen outcry about the word "Negro" on the 2010 Census, but others take issue with the inclusion of race at all.

As founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit group set up to safeguard constitutional freedoms, John Whitehead argues that the current census perpetuates racism by "requiring citizens to take a colored view of themselves."

Whitehead uses the "Negro" debate mentioned previously to highlight his point that asking citizens to mark their race is outright racism (He chooses to ignore, however, the racist history of that word compared to the other more neutral classifications like white and Asian). He cites an email from "an all-American citizen" named Marc who is similarly outraged by the census. Marc writes:

"There's no reason to use race to distinguish people...The time has come to lose racial identity to end racism and start seeing ourselves as fellow humans and not to assume that you can determine anything from the color of someone’s skin other than the color of their skin. I don’t want to give the government information so that they can make decisions based on race."

Whitehead applauds Marc's assertions and goes on to say that including race on the census will only make race more salient in the public consciousness, preventing us from viewing each other as people rather than colors.

I wholeheartedly agree with both Marc and Whitehead that seeing ourselves as fellow humans is an honorable goal. Ideally, color wouldn't matter. But ideally, no one would live below the poverty line either, and we would all have health care. Reality isn't ideal, and that couldn't be truer when it comes to race.

Part of the reason for including race on the census has to do with drawing district boundaries based on population change and makeup. Whether this is good or bad is another issue altogether, and one I do not delve into in this post. But race and ethnicity are also used on the census to determine resource allocation. Whether we like it or not, there are differences in income, employment rates and even household demographics across racial groups. Different groups need different services, and what better way for government to assess these needs than a nationwide, uniform census?

The 2010 Census asks our age. Do we argue that this perpetuates ageism? The form asks for household size as well. Do we think this will lead to infanticide? No, because older people and bigger households have different needs than other groups, and the government should be aware of that.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, removing race from the census would ignore the legacy of racism that precedes us. Unlike Whitehead, I do not think electing a black president "is a sign that America is becoming more colorblind." Rather, I argue that racism is alive and well (it is perhaps more subtle, but still with us), and that if we are ever to eradicate racial disparity, we cannot ignore it today. It is ignorant to overlook race, and in doing so, we are only perpetuating the white privilege that lets whites in both government and larger society turn a blind eye to inequality.

Mr. Whitehead, I commend your optimism that a race-neutral world is achievable. But until then, I'm just fine checking, "White, non-Hispanic" on my forms this year.

Photo Credit: Bossip.com/U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Black babies more likely to die in my hometown county

A new study from Children's Memorial Research Center found that Cook County's black babies are 12 times more likely than white babies to die of sleep-related causes. Even worse, black infants are 17 times more likely to die of unknown sleep-related causes.

Sleep-related deaths include sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and unintentional suffocation in bed. According to Chicago Tribune reporter Deborah L. Shelton, sleep-related deaths account for 90 deaths a year in Cook County. The number may seem small, but the racial disparity is a serious public health issue. According to the research center, almost 20 percent of black infant mortality deaths in Cook County are sleep-related, while sleep-related deaths account for less than 5 percent of white infant mortality in the county.

I commend the researchers for acknowledging that decreasing the disparity must be a public health goal. I commend the project itself. What I take issue with is the lack of probing into why these deaths occur.

Shelton takes a blaming tone when she says, "In most cases, the infants had been sleeping in unsafe situations that put them at risk, such as being placed in a bed with a parent." She goes on to say that many babies "sleep alone but not in a crib or bassinet--often on a couch or pillow on the floor." This is the first mention of why these infants die, and subsequent references mention rollovers, accidental suffocation," children falling off beds and babies sleeping on lumpy sofas or cots.

There is no mention of the economic and social barriers that lead to these deaths. Do parents have the resources to learn about proper infant care, let alone buy a safe crib? Do cultural differences impact where babies sleep?

The only mention of economics comes from Sheila Sanders, project coordinator for the Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coaliton. She says some low-income apartments are often too small to fit a crib and an adult bed, forcing parents to bring their infant to bed with them. She does not explain why parents find themselves in such a predicament.

With shocking research like this, both researchers and reporters would do well to explore the deeper causes of such disparity. Parents may be partly to blame, but there are other societal forces at play here as well. It might be easier to blame the mother for snuggling up to her baby at night, rather than look beneath the surface to examine the cultural and social forces that bring that baby into bed with her.

We cannot make progress unless we unveil both the cultural underpinnings and the systemic disparities in income, education and both pre- and post-natal care. The cynic in me wants to say some are loathe to bring the black infant mortality to par with that of whites, but I refuse to let that attitude prevail. Rather, we should see this study not as a finger-pointing attack on black parents, but as a jumping off point for saving babies both black and white.

Photo Credit: University of North Texas Health Science Center

White supremacists: Our racist scapegoats

White supremacists may not be attending plays about racism, but they sure are cropping up on television. In the Mar. 22 issue of Newsweek, reporter Joshua Alston examines the prevalence of these white-power radicals on primetime television:

--The new FX series Justified centers on a U.S. Marshall who returns to his childhood home, only to find that his childhood friend now leads a violent white-supremacist group.

--Sons of Anarchy's second season focused on a battle between a motorcycle gang and the white-separatist "League of American Nationalists."

--The serial killer drama Dexter now features a white supremacist hanger-on.

--Law & Order--all three renditions--dealt with crimes precipitated by a white-power organization.

Why so much white bigotry? Alston hits it right on the mark:

"The reason the card-carrying white supremacist lingers in the public imagination is not just because he's scary, but because he fortifies our self-regard in an area where we all occasionally need some convincing."

To some extent, Alston says, we are all racist:

"On some level we all recognize this, and to acknowledge—-or even inflate—-white supremacists is to assuage our guilt with the knowledge that there are people out there far more prejudiced than most of us could ever be."

White supremacists are a catch-all for white guilt. We can look at the white KKK robes and say, "How awful!", without registering our own biases. White supremacists on TV gives us a means to cast aside our own white guilt. We can argue, "I'm not THAT bad," and ignore the bigotry within us. With enough exposure to these characters, we begin to think THEY are the problem, and we erroneously believe our comparably small prejudices are inconsequential.

While I tend to take a cynical view of Hollywood and say that producers are in it for the money, making shows with least common denominator content with the broadest appeal, I will try to be hopeful. If TV producers truly want to help us understand the ills of white supremacy, which Alston says is on the rise in America (a result of a black president, illegal immigration and an economic recession), I suggest they de-radicalize these groups. Showing viewers that radical bigotry exists not only at KKK rallies, but at the neighborhood barbecue, the office party or even the local book club meeting can do wonders to curtail white scapegoating. TV execs should not show us the "glorified worst," but they should incorporate into their programs a more mundane, dare I say relatable conceptualization of white power.

TV producers take note: Not only are you perpetuating whiteness, but you are endorsing its worst brand. We cannot confront our own biases until you bring racism to our level.

Photo Credit: Reuters/Jessica Rinaldi

If ignorance is bliss, what is knowing mockery?

Whenever I come home to Chicago (yes, the actual city), I immediately remember why I love this place: The diversity of people, neighborhoods, languages, food, religions and other cultural practices is evident on every corner. A ten-minute walk from my house lands you in the midst of Indian sari shops, while a trip in the other direction would have you buying produce at a local mercado.

This diversity extends to Chicago's arts and entertainment offerings as well. A read through the Chicago Tribune's event listings for this weekend boasts African dance workshops, Ukrainian vodka tastings and Capoeira performances.

Of particular note was a listing for a play by Young Jean Lee. "The Shipment," writes Tribune reporter Doug George, "is a play that puts cultural images of black America on stage and lets the audience sort them out."

Lee says this off-Broadway play, which debuted last year, is not intended to be an "identity-politics show." Rather, the playwright intends to show you your biases and help you question them.

This clash of biases and assumptions is clear from the play's title. "The Shipment" alludes to both a shipment of drugs and the African slave trade. Using comedy, song and dance, the play's actors act out racial prejudice, at times making sharp racial divisions into sharp wit and comic fodder.

Is this a step forward, or a big leap backward? Is it good that we can talk about these ideas in a comedic way, or that we can talk about them at all? Or is this presentation of racial bias not "anti-racism" enough to elicit change?

Without seeing the play, I can't say much about how Lee makes us aware of our own prejudices. What I can say, however, is that I think theater-goers seeking out this play are probably some of the more progressive thinkers out there. These people are probably not outright racist; they are most likely comfortable examining their beliefs and thinking critically about how race impacts their lives. Self-selection, then, dulls the impact of the play.

But even if the white supremacists among us won't be watching, public awareness is the first step to change. Watching black actors play to black stereotypes may seem like a step backward to some, but the real regressions are things like the Texas textbook debacle, in which we not only fail to analyze, but we fail to acknowledge racism and prejudice throughout history as well.

Criticisms aside, Lee's success shows us we should never underestimate the power of humor and satire to start conversations. I think John Stewart would second that...

Photo Credit: Paula Court

New study shows HUGE disparity between white, minority women

A recent study out of the Insight Center for Community Economic Development shows tremendous wealth inequality among women of different races. Among the findings reported by Democracy Now, the report shows about half of all single black and Hispanic women have debt that exceeds their assets. Thus, they have zero or negative wealth.

Wealth, as defined by the authors of the report, refers to the value of your assets--money held in checking or savings, retirement benefits, real estate--after subtracting debts and liabilities like mortgage and loans. Separate from income, wealth can be said to indicate your long-term financial security.

The most shocking finding, however, is in the comparison of minority women to white women:

The median wealth for single white women is just over $41,000. The median wealth for single Hispanic women is $120, and the median wealth for single black women is $100.

This data is a staggering reminder of the legacy of inequality that continues to this day. The Insight Center points out that wealth can be passed down through generations, and this surely accounts for much of the wealth disparity by race. Policies intended to keep minorities below whites in terms of political, economic and social power have stifled the voices and progress of countless minorities. Residential segregation has kept minorities out of areas with good schools, good jobs and opportunities for growth, a phenomenon referred to as spatial mismatch. The racialization of welfare (think "Cadillac-driving welfare queens") has been followed by reduced support for welfare programs (think Reaganomics and trickle-down theory).

We have outlawed segregation, but many of these roadblocks still exist today. Gerrymandering, or drawing residential boundaries based on demographics of the area, is still allowed, and white flight is alive and well, with many professional jobs following suburb-bound whites. Racial stereotypes persist, both at work and in society, resulting in many minorities' internalization of inferiority.

In short, black and Hispanic women's lack of wealth is the product of history. Rather than a failure to spend responsibly or save diligently, their lack of wealth is a product of generations of hardship and racial prejudice. While white women have had a chance to build wealth and pass their assets onto their children, minority women have struggled against government and social policy to survive.

This report shows that those who extol racial equality speak too soon. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, this report underscores the need for action. The Huffington Post lists some of the solutions offered by the Insight Center, but none of these address the legacy of inequality behind the wealth disparity.

We must examine our policies in all areas of life--housing, employment, education, health, etc--that contribute to minority women's lack of wealth. We must tailor existing policies and create new policies geared toward minority women specifically, as any policy intended to help all women will also give white women a leg up and only serve to maintain this racial disparity. We must recognize that any effort at reform that does not look back at the years of discrimination is only a band-aid. We must bear in mind that while white women pass down thousands in wealth, black and Hispanic women pass down years of racism.

Photo Credit: Bet.com

Can everyone shut up about Gabourey Sidibe's weight?

The story exploded onto the news sites and blogs last week. Shock-jock Howard Stern declared Oscar-nominated actress Gabourey Sidibe too fat for Hollywood, and his comment spurred countless discussions on whether, in fact, she was too big for the movie business. Everyone, from talk show host Joy Behar to Glamour magazine, took on the topic, and many seemed to miss the mark.

Is Sidibe overweight? Yes. Is this a health risk? Yes. Is her weight or overall health any of our business? No. Rather than focusing on her ability as an actress, a majority of the discussions centered around the perils of obesity. And yet where is the discussion of James Gandolfini's beer gut or Kevin James' double chin? It's as if we forgot Sidibe is paid to act, and not to be Hollywood's mascot for fat hate.

While it is doubtlessly true that Hollywood perpetuates a thin ideal, we should be reminded that this ideal is often unhealthy and/or unattainable. Why should Sidibe take advice from an industry that lets James Cameron's wife walk the red carpet with forearms larger than her biceps?

Sidibe's weight might be a roadblock to her success in Hollywood, but Howard Stern and others overlooked the fact that not only is Sidibe overweight--she's also black. Dark black. San Francisco Chronicle blogger Margot Magowan identifies this omission in the Sidibe dialogue, saying, "Even if the talented actress lost weight, she'd still be too black for Hollywood."

In a previous post, I wrote about dark-skinned black women's underrepresentation in music videos. The absence of dark-skinned black women extends to Hollywood films as well. Think of today's popular black actresses: Halle Berry, Zeo Saldana, Jada Pinkett Smith. All of these women are considerably lighter than Sidibe.

Sidibe broke onto the scene in a movie about black struggle. Her struggle to maintain relevant in Hollywood hinges not only on the scale, but on the darkness of her skin as well.

Photo Credit: HelloBeautiful.com

Georgia's new pro-life campaign preys on black fears

A new ad campaign sponsored by Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation declares black children an "endangered species."

As Plain Dealer columnist Connie Schultz explains, the eighty some billboards feature the face of a scared black child, the slogan "BLACK CHILDREN ARE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, and the website address toomanyaborted.com.

Pro-choice advocates nationwide have rallied against the campaign, arguing it is both inaccurate and dehumanizing. As Schultz reports, Planned Parenthood's Vice President for Medical Affairs Vanessa Cullins believes "endangered species" makes African Americans "less than human." Outraged by references to black women's abortions as "womb lynchings," Cullins argues the billboards are an attempt to revoke black women's control over their bodies and their lives.

Caroline Davis, minority outreach coordinator for Georgia Right to Life, remains adamant that Planned Parenthood wants to get rid of black babies. Citing evidence that black women have more abortions than white women, Davis says she is just providing the information necessary to help black women make sound decisions.

Sound decisions for whom I wonder. If Cullins is correct in her assertion that black women have less access to affordable health care and birth control, we can reasonably assume these women have less access to health information as well. How can a 15 X 7 foot billboard provide the well-rounded information needed to make an educated decision on abortion? It can't.

If black women seek out more abortions than white women, telling them black babies are endangered isn't going to solve the larger problem. It might make women ashamed to get an abortion, but it won't stop unplanned pregnancy. It might make women less likely to discuss sexuality with their families or doctors, a problem Cullins cites as detrimental to the health of the black community, but it won't make women better prepared to handle the challenges of pregnancy or the decision to abort.

And if the billboards do cause black women to avoid abortion, are these women any better prepared to care for their children? I think not.

These ads feed off inequality. Without equal access to information and resources, black women are left looking to propaganda to make life-altering decisions. If Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation really wanted to help black families, they would offer sex education, parental training courses and emotional support for pregnant black women. Instead, they push their agenda on those most at risk for accepting it.

Photo Credit: The Associated Press