The Crutch

A person I've known for over fifteen years, a conservative who shall remain nameless, posted the following on my facebook:

"Once again you say anything against a person of color, you must be a racist. Typical kneejerk reaction. Black people can always claim racism, it is their never ending crutch, and probably the biggest thing that holds them back in life."

Since this person isn't a conservative whack job like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the statement that was made is believed by a fairly large group of Americans. Now, in analyzing the statement, it can be inferred that the person believes that racism is not a pervasive problem in America, since the claim that it's a "crutch" says that if it was simply thrown away, that if Blacks quit believing that American society and institutions were racist, then societal advancement would become more available.

Should Blacks and other "persons of color" simply stop believing in racism? Will societal issues facing non-whites in America be relieved if the belief will simply stop, or is there a pervasive racism to believe in? What is racism? According to Dictionary.com:

rac⋅ism

–noun

1.	a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.	a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.	hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

---

Origin:
1865–70; < class="ital-inline">racisme. See race ² , -ism

Related forms:

racist, noun, adjective

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source

|

he belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I personally reject this definition, only because I reject the word itself. There is only one human race, homo sapiens. The last time another human race existed was Homo neanderthalensis 24,000 years ago. It has beeen postulated that homo sapiens exterminated Homo neanderthalensis, an ultimate act of racism if there ever was one. However, returning to the main point, I find Bigotry to be a more accurate term. Let's give dictionary.com a whirl on that one:

big⋅ot⋅ry

–noun, plural -ries.

1.	stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2.	the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

---

Origin:
1665–75; bigot + -ry, formation parallel to F bigoterie

Synonyms:
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source

|

n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

Looking at both of these words, both the accurate and inaccurate, one word comes up in both definitions, discrimination. We're back to Dictionary.com:

dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion Show IPA

1.	an act or instance of discriminating.

2.	treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3.	the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

4.	Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

Obviously only definitions 1 and 2 apply to our discussion here, and it defines the terms on which the existence of racism/bigotry can be argued. First, as in the first definition, it requires an overt act. If everyone were bigoted and no one ever acted on it, it would be impossible to prove that bigotry existed. Further, one overt act by one individual or separate acts by a small group or localized population could not prove a pervasive bigotry in the United States. Secondly, these overt acts must be based on the actor being of one group, class, or category, and the reason(s) for the action(s) are that another person is of another group, class, or category.

I believe that bigotry can be (dis)proved most easily by looking at certain areas of society. Obviously, there are places that everyone wants to be, and places no one wants to be. There are, believe it or not, absolute meritocracies in the United States. One way of looking for a pervasive bigotry is to look at demographic numbers. What percentage of the population is each group, and what percentage of each group is included is these positive and negative areas of society? According to the Department of Defense and the Heritage foundation, this is the population breakdown of the United States:

White - 77.44%
Hispanic - 12.11%
Black - 11.33%
Asian - 3.67%
First Nations - 0.78%

Almost five percent chose not to answer, but I believe that the base proportions of ethnicities would not be greatly affected by the inclusion of that five percent. What we are now looking for is differentiations from the demographics of the overall population versus demographics of different societal groups.

Let's begin with prison populations. This is someplace no one wants to be. Some would argue that prison IS a meritocracy since only those who are deserving go there. Anyone with common sense knows that this is false, since application and severity of legal consequences is based almost as much on the quality of legal representation as it is on evidence of acts committed by the accused. Check with http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Bad-Lawyering.php for more information. Now looking at the prison population, where no one wants to go, and it is NOT a meritocracy:

Black - 40%
White - 36%
Hispanic - 19%
First Nations - 1%
Asian - 1%
Mixed - 3%

So Blacks are overrepresented in places no one wants to be by over 350%, and Hispanics are overrepresented by over a third. Whites are underrepresented by more than half. Many would say that Blacks and Hispanics are just a bunch of criminals, while others could say that poverty is a big factor in crime. While the latter has significantly more merit than the former, I would also point to the fact that Lawyers are 89% White, 4% Black and 3% Hispanic. (http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/Lawyer_Demographics.pdf) Also, Judges are 85% White and 13% non-white (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/08/federal-court-demographics-changing-to.php) So Blacks and Hispanic are overrepresented in those who go to prison, while whites are overrepresented in those who decide who goes to prison. Let's keep going, you never know what we'll find next.

Now lets try another non-meritocracy, that people do want to get into, Politics. Besides the government pay and and good health insurance, politicians have great power and influence in their constituencies, and in some cases on the national scale. Let's get right to it:

House of Representatives - 435 members

White - 363 (83.4%)
Black - 42 (9.6%)
Hispanic - 24 (5.5%)
First Nations - 1 (0.2%)
Asian - 5 (1.1%)

So we have Hispanics and Asians woefully underrepresented, Blacks underrepresented, and Whites Overrepresented. Lets try the Senate, 100 members makes the percentages easy!!

Whites - 96 (96%)
Black - 1 (1%)
Hispanic - 1 (1%)
First Nations - 1 (1%)
Asian - 1(1%)

And just for fun, some quick numbers, 99.8% of presidents were white, 0.2% were not. So again, Whites are overrepresented in an profession where decisions are made about the lives, opportunities and futures of others.

Ok, lets try another one, this time, something that IS a meritocracy, but not a lot of people want to be into, the Army. As of 2003, this is the breakdown of Army Demographics:

White - 78.5%
Black - 16.25%
Hispanic - 10.74%
First Nations - 1.2%
Asian - 1.1%

Isn't that strange? The demographic breakdown is suddenly close to the actual population numbers. How could that be? Could it be that when merit is a bigger factor in a given area, there's a greater representation of minorities?

Finally let's try the ultimate meritocracy, professional sports. Everyone wants to do that, and it's an absolute meritocracy. Winning is the only measure, so decision makers will always select the best player, regardless of ethnicity. Let's start with the NFL:

Black - 67%
White - 31%
Hispanic 1%
Asian - 1%

Hmmm...in an absolute Meritocracy that many want to belong to, Blacks are overrepresented. Let's try the NBA!

Black - 76%
White - 20%
Latino - 3%
Sian - 1%

Wow, another absolute Meritocracy that many want to belong to, and again Blacks are overrepresented. How about the National Pastime?

White - 60%
Black - 19%
Hispanic - 18%
Asian - 1%

Again, when merit is inescapable, Blacks are overrepresented. When not based on merit, Blacks are underrepresented.

I make no conclusions about this data, since they should be obvious. So ask yourself, is it a crutch?