If you asked the average white person in the U.S., “Are you racist?” or “Are all races equal?” I’m sure the answers would all be resounding “no”s and “of course”s, with looks of shock and horror that you would even presume that they could be or think such a thing. But we live in a society where the president can refuse to condemn white supremacists, who support him, and later insist to be “not racist.” These “not racist”s have no grasp on the way their words hurt, the way their ideas fit into a historical context, or how they are perpetuating the pervasive racism in our society. Most think racism ends with a moral argument – of course, they do not think black folks are less intelligent; of course, they do not think people of color don’t belong in their neighborhood. They just “back the blue” and believe “all lives matter.” These white folks think racism is a simple, moral problem, but this multi-dimensional issue is much, much more complex. In “The Case for Reparations,” Ta-Nehesi Coates presents another side to racism. He challenges the simplistic, moral view of racism by presenting racism’s economic side specifically in the white folks’ deliberate refusal to allow black folks to attain wealth throughout American history.
One of Coates’ most powerful examples is the white folks’ destruction of “Black Wall Street” in Tulsa and the affluent black town of Rosewood, Florida because, in both cases, they believed a black man attacked or raped a white woman (30). These two towns were prospering with businesses, large houses, churches, and other establishments people had invested their money in. When the white folks ransacked houses, stole, and killed without consequence, they truly impeded black folks’ economic progression. These people had put in huge amounts of effort to amass money to build their town, and the only people who benefited from this relocation of wealth were the white people. For example, in Tulsa, some black folks had just started investing their money into building a church, but it was completely leveled.
In addition to physically destroying black folks’ wealth, white folks refused to allow them to own homes in any capacity. The American Dream and the “emblem of American citizenship” requires “home ownership” and the pursuit of property, but “that emblem was not to be awarded to blacks” (33). Society was intentionally designed through laws to enrich the white community and make the black community poorer, and housing discrimination was one of these methods. To this day, owning a home is seen as a way to get out of poverty and join the middle class, but continually, black folks are denied this opportunity. When the government forced black folks into public housing “in Chicago between 1950 and the mid-1960s,” people saw black folks as lazy and in need of free handouts (35). However, public housing was also used to keep black folks together in poorer areas. It was not just a giveaway; rather, it kept black folks out of the white neighborhoods and prevented them from owning their own property and thus, their own wealth.
As Coates shows, the economic setback of black folks in this country was not accidental; it was deliberate manipulation. For example, white home sellers would target black folks looking for a home and then sell them “contracts,” which meant that if the buyer “missed a single payment,” they would lose all of their payments and eventually the property (7). These people would sell the black folks homes “at inflated prices and then evict families who could not pay…Then they’d bring in another black family, rinse, and repeat” (7). This cycle of manipulation and stealing caused black families looking for a home to lose their money and be forced into public housing and poverty. Overall, this exploitation helped transfer money from black folks to white folks.
Coates demonstrates that throughout American history, there has truly been a systematic prevention and impediment of the accumulation of wealth for black folks. When using the moral argument of racism, white folks can show their disapproval of treating one race better than another and attempt to demonstrate a non-existent post-racial society, probably pointing to our previous black president and the fact that they “do not see race.” On the other hand, by using an economic argument, one can demonstrate that slavery’s effects have not ended specifically through the destruction of affluent black towns, housing discrimination, and contracts. Racism has a myriad of facets with the economic side being just one of those, which is, in and of itself, vastly too complex to address in one blog, essay, or even book. We literally cannot EVER simplify the issue of race. And if it feels simple to us, we have a lot more to learn. If any of those “not a racist”s read Coates’ essay, they might be able to see his underlying argument, and hopefully, be able to come to a much-needed realization – they “are racist.”
Word Count: 830
Pledged: William McLain
____________________________
[1] Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic,
Atlantic Media Company, June 2014.
That has become a problem with white folks believing that racism is dead because they see black people succeeding in society. The problem is how much harder that black person had to work in order to get there. White supremacy is the main reason for this. Anybody can be a white supremacist and the fact that we believe that they are only Neo-Nazis or members of the klu klux klan, blocks our view on society today. This universal view that white people are better is what creates the barrier black people are forced to break down in order to be successful. This also shows up in the fact that white people are surprised when a black person is extremely successful, because they automatically assume that a white person would have fit perfectly in that role.
ReplyDelete