Silent Racism: How Well-Meaning People Perpetuate the Racial Divide, by Barbara Trepagnier, 2006.

There are two factions that try to explain racial inequality: the equalitarians that deny any differences in the essence of different population groups such as average intelligence, conscientiousness, forethought, etc. and the Jensenist faction that studies heredity, twin studies, correlations between wealth and intelligence, etc. One is anecdotal and non-theoretical without any program to in fact test or try and disprove the theory—they are primarily dialogs about accepted oppression. The psychometricians however are grounded in statistical analysis; developing theories that rely on methodologies that can be disproven or verified based on observable outcomes and collected data. The two are worlds apart in applying the scientific method of narratives versus scientific empiricism.

Trepagnier, with “feminism, racism, and postmodernism” shaping her thinking, writes, “My goal in writing this book is to encourage well-meaning white people to reconsider their ideas about racism. The title, Silent Racism: How Well-Meaning White People Perpetuate the Racial Divide, suggests that concerned whites are implicated in racial problems, including the disparity between blacks and whites. The title also introduces the term silent racism, which raises the question: Why talk about silent racism? After all, if it is silent, how could it possibly matter? [T]he racist thoughts, images, and assumptions in the minds of white people, including those that by most accounts are ‘not racist’—is dangerous precisely because it is perceived as harmless. The silent racism in people’s thoughts, images, and assumptions shapes their perspective of reality. And a perspective that is shaped by racist thoughts, images, and assumptions—no matter how subtle they are—will produce behavior that reflects racist thoughts, images, and assumptions.”

She goes on later to contradict the “racism leads to behavior” connection, and she never defines what a well-meaning person is other than some abstract do-gooder that puts other races ahead of their own. There is also no proof that people who for the most part do not hate other races may just be simply indifferent, as seems to be the case generally for most people. Blacks may be obsessed by race, but most Whites fall towards the center when it comes to affirmative action, quotas, college admissions, diversity, corporate multiculturalism programs, etc. They are simply more passive than anything else.

Trepagnier continues, “The ideas presented in this book emerged from within a sociological paradigm that regards racism in the United States as a societal phenomenon that began with slavery, was sustained throughout the Reconstruction period, and persists today in the institutions of society—in other words, systemic racism.”

The problem is that under this paradigm, there is no way to link racism with the institutions. Institutions are prohibited from racist practices and the elite in institutions—not affected by affirmative action, quotas, or set-asides—come down firmly on the side of minorities, diversity and multiculturalism. Average people have little control over others that they work with and must fall in line with politically correct behavior and attitudes as promulgated by the media, academia, and the government.

Trepagnier claims that, “Whites in the ‘racist’ category are defined as disliking or hating blacks and other minorities, and their animosity is portrayed in acts or statements that are blatantly racist.” But are these “acts” real or imagined? Do not Blacks, with their animosity towards Whites, act out their hostility far more than do Whites? Whites that are hostile towards Blacks generally do not act out that hostility, but merely observe it or discuss it with their family or friends. It is very unwise to go around antagonizing minorities one meets on the street anymore than it is wise to get into road-rage confrontations. And within institutions, it is even more hazardous not to play-along and get-along to stay out of trouble. So how do ‘racists’ act out their dislike of the ‘other’? when society is heavily controlled by the corporation, the media, athletic organizations, the public sector, business relationships, etc. There simply are no mechanisms that are easily acted out to harm Blacks by individuals within institutions.

This book used focus groups to gather attitudes about race relations, the so-called narrative approach to social science research where conclusions are made from any loose dialog by groups of people. Trepagnier claims, “Unlike symbolic racism, which is linked to conservative politics, aversive racism (self-denial of racist thoughts) is closely related to self-proclaimed liberals. Aversive racism and silent racism are related in that the tendency to avoid mentioning race is acknowledged by several of the participants in this study.”

I don’t find that at all unusual given the fact that race cannot be discussed openly in the United States by people within group settings because the mere mention of racial inequality leads ineluctably to assertion by the biological sciences that Blacks are not as intelligent on average as Whites. (Or the conservative response that they are just lazy.) The liberal paradigm just has no scientific basis that has withstood time and no discussion of race can take place without having very tight controls on free speech.

Trepagnier wants “well-meaning” good people to inject themselves into situations where they see racism occurring (apparently only White people need intervene since we are the only ones held accountable for racism). For well-meaning anti-racist action to take place, “Only white people who are clear about the historical legacy of racism in the United States, who understand how institutional racism operates, and who sense their own complicity with a system that benefits them to the detriment of people of color are likely to be active in interrupting racism when they encounter it.”

There are several errors in these simplistic—and unverified—assumptions about how people behave based merely on what they know or understand. First, anyone with any power over others would have a thorough understanding the history of slavery in the United States. Second, there is no understanding how institutional racism operates; if it were transparent and known there would be attempts to legislate away these in-built operational detriments to Black progress. Third, how can one have a feeling of being complicit in actions that are unknown? The only evidence put forth, and the only evidence that is allowed as to why Blacks do poorly, is merely the fact that they do poorly.

As David P. Barash states in his recent book Natural Selection, “This is the biological purpose of every mind, human as well as animal, and moreover, it is its only purpose….The brain’s purpose is to direct….our external behavior in a way that maximizes our evolutionary success. That’s it. Given this, it is remarkable that the human mind is good at solving any problems whatsoever, beyond ‘Who should I mate with?’, ‘What is that guy up to?’, ‘How can I help my kid?’, or ‘Where are the antelopes hanging out at this time of year?’ There is nothing in the biological specifications for brain-building that calls for a device capable of high-powered reasoning, or of solving abstract problems, or even of providing an accurate picture of the ‘outside’ world, beyond what is needed to enable its possessors to thrive and reproduce.”

Therefore, from a purely rational perspective, it is in my best interest to see to it that I and my kin take every advantage and make use of every benefit over others to do well in a zero-sum-game world. If Whites in general reduced the disparity between Whites and Blacks by submitting to large transfers of wealth from Whites to Blacks, this would be in evolutionary terms maladaptive and would work against our genetic interests. Rationally then, I simply don’t care about others’ feelings, real or imagined, of oppression.

Trepagnier admits the incompleteness of racism theories: “This chapter begins with the sociological concept of institutional racism, including the effects it produces and the theories that have developed around it. Several of the theories imply the role of actors (people who take action); however, none bridges the micro/macro gap satisfactorily. In other words, none of the theories explains how the action of individuals produces societal patterns of racial inequality. I will present a theory of institutional racism that forges a link between social institutions and the actors who sustain them. The theory also explains how institutional racism is carried out largely by people who have no intention to produce it.” Just more theoretical speculation without any hard data.

“[I]nstitutional racism, as a concept has been expanded to include the role of cultural beliefs as integral to the process. Despite these changes, sociology has been slow to explain the role of actors involved in the production and maintenance of institutional racism. A breakthrough in sociological race theory, institutional racism has remained a compelling macrolevel concept primarily because it demonstrates the important idea that racism permeates society through its institutions; that is, the concept reveals that racism is systemic. In accomplishing this, institutional racism illustrates that racism is more than the prejudice of individuals. The difficulty, however, is that the concept implicitly disconnects individuals from institutions. This false separation results in institutional racism being undertheorized in terms of the mechanism through which institutions produce racial inequality.” That is, the theory is clueless as to the mechanism involved from getting from an observation of inequality in outcomes to how racism brings this about. And of course, Blacks are never held in the least accountable, including being burdened by their own bitterness and hatreds towards others.

She then states that it is the U.S. institutions that cause more harm to Blacks than bigoted individuals because institutions will favor the dominant group over minorities. But how does this square with the fact that there is as much disparity between Ashkenazi Jews and White Americans as there is between Whites and Blacks? Does “the criminal justice system, education, and the economy put people of color at a disadvantage” while giving advantages to Jews over both Whites and Blacks? After all, there is the same inequality found between these three ethnic groups. But this equally large disparity between Whites and Jews will never be mentioned in racism studies because it contradicts the entire basis for the paradigm, while basing inequality on innate intelligence is supported by the strong correlation between wages, wealth, power, health, education, etc. when a group’s average intelligence is considered.

Without any evidence, Trepagnier states that “[I]nstitutional racism is not limited to disadvantages that accrue to blacks and other minorities. It also includes the ‘miseducation of white children,’ which teaches that racial equality has been achieved despite gross evidence to the contrary.” In general, the educational system has clung tightly to the equalitarian dogma when it comes to ability and the inequality dogma when it comes to outcome, and has suppressed all explanations for this incongruence by refusing to consider heritability and human differences.

Returning to the racism that Blacks harbor towards Whites, Trepagnier writes, “The one consistent finding is that black/white interaction between equals is associated with positive attitudes about blacks among whites, although not always with positive attitudes about whites among blacks.” That is the other major dogma of racism studies, “only test Whites for their supposed racist attitudes—never test Blacks or any other group for the same attitudes, prejudices, and hatred that has been attributed to Whites.”

Trepagnier admits that there is no possibility of an open and honest debate with regards to racism without ideological controls of the most sensitive issues—they must be suppressed at any cost as she states, “The danger in the case of white women working together on their racism is the possibility that someone might begin to think, for example, that a statement like Vanessa’s about IQ and racial difference has merit, or that Katie’s question about black Americans going ‘back’ to Africa might be a viable solution to the problem of racism in the United States. Whether or not these dangers outweigh the value of ‘all-white’ group-work is unclear.”

If these work-groups were really open discussions they of course would bring up many uncomfortable alternatives. It is increasingly recognized through behavior genetic studies, studies of genes, neurophysiology, etc., that eventually the genetic basis of intelligence will have to be accepted in a scientifically open society—it is just a matter of research and the money required to fund it. Also, it may not be feasible to send Blacks back to Africa, but it is already happening that Whites are separating from Blacks, especially where they live and play. Racism problems will be greatly mitigated then as the races depart each other’s company.

Trepagnier laments that, “Opponents cast government policies that level the playing field as ‘reverse racism,’ a color-blind view that denies both the effect of structures (slavery, segregation, and institutional racism) on blacks and the effect of racial ideology on whites. Institutional racism and the racist ideology operate to the advantage of whites and the disadvantage of blacks, and they operate in tandem. To ignore either is to distort how racism is produced.”

Of course most Whites are not against having a level playing field, but they are against giving unfair advantages to any particular minority. This has nothing to do with not understanding slavery and segregation in the past, and everything to do with merely not living in the past and not using the past to dictate what should be looked at as equitable today. And as for racist ideology, she claims it advantages Whites—then why would Whites want to end racism? And yet Whites are at the forefront of giving special advantages to Blacks.

Trepagnier claims that institutional racism is embedded in our educational institutions. Yet whenever the courts have declared preferences for Blacks over Whites unconstitutional it is those very White administrators who scramble to change the rules to bring back preferences. The latest scam including letting the top percentage of each high school senior class enter the university system, knowing full well that there is a huge disparity in average intelligence between a mostly Black school and a mostly White school. Another tactic is to do away with aptitude tests and use numerous subjective criteria such as volunteer work for the needy, activities in clubs, leadership, etc. In this way, a subjective selection can select more Blacks by ignoring their average low intelligence.

The real purpose of this book is to show non-racist and sympathetic Whites that they are to blame for racism just as much as the overt racist merely because they are not proactive whenever possible to confront racism in other Whites when they come across it. She just assumes that it is up to Whites to solve all of the racial problems and none of that burden need fall on the downtrodden Blacks. All Whites are racists and Black racism is merely not mentioned. And most importantly, like all of these anti-racist screeds, she simply ignores all of the historical and scientific data that does not fit her tightly knit theories about the causes of inequality.

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 09:26 PM in Race realism
Comments (15) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: RESULT OF PERSPECTIVES (1930)

Previous entry: Night and the Holocaust