White Men on Race: Power, Privilege, and the Shaping of Cultural Consciousness PDF
Preview White Men on Race: Power, Privilege, and the Shaping of Cultural Consciousness
INTRODUCTION One ofthe greatest Americans ofthe last century, W.E.B. DuBois, once said that the problem ofthe twentieth century was the color line. We can extend this insightful comment, for this color line is still in many ways the problem ofthe twenty-first century. Indeed, virtually every week, the national news media report on some type of debate or conflict over is- sues of race, ethnicity, racism, or immigration in the United States. At the center of these issues are white Americans, and especially elite white men. This book is about this rather neglected group of white Americans. Surprisingly enough, the views, perspectives, and proclivi- ties of this group have received relatively little detailed attention in the research literature or in popular magazines and periodicals. Indeed, we know considerably more about the views of ordinary white men and women than we do about the white men in the local, regional, and na- tional elites. As we were writing this introduction, news programs were report- ing on highly controversial remarks made by Trent Lott, the former leader of the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate, and once one of the most powerful white men at the very top of the U.S. elite. Remarking nostalgically on Senator Strom Thurmond's run for president in 1948 as an outspoken segregationist, Lott said that the people of Mississippi voted for Thurmond and that "we're proud of him. And if the rest ofthe WHITE MEN ON RACE country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." Lott soon apologized for this and earlier re- marks supportive of Thurmond, who had run under the banner of "Seg- regation Forever." Soon Lott was also apologizing for other actions such as his cozying up to neo-confederate groups, and for his votes against ex- tending the Voting Rights Act.' Somewhat belatedly, the white-domi- nated mass media linked their discussions to the fact that many in the Republican Party had long catered to the racial views of white voters to garner support. In the debates over Lott's remarks, however, it became clear that many white men, among many others, did not agree with his remarks or with the Republican Party's often racialized strategy to se- cure white votes. Though some leading white officials said they thought Lott did not mean what he said, eventually many white leaders tardily censured his remarks as unacceptable, including President George W. Bush. Clearly worried about the impact on moderate voters' opinion, many Republicans moved to prevent Lott from becoming Senate major- ity leader, and Lott withdrew. While only a few white leaders have so far used this incident as an occasion to call for aggressive enforcement of civil rights laws and new efforts to end systemic racial discrimination in the United States, a num- ber ofthe nation's white leaders did go beyond condemning Lott's nos- talgic remarks to censure the racialized strategies that many conservative white Republicans and other conservatives have used to try to win over white voters. Thus, former president Bill Clinton spoke out strongly against Lott's remarks, and further noted that many Republicans have "tried to suppress black voting, they've ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina." He added, "Look at their whole record. He embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the back- roads every day."'^ Over time, white commentators in the mass media gave Lott mixed reviews. Three days after Lott's comments, for example, columnist Robert Novak made a comment that was typical of some early assess- ments: "I don't think he was at all serious, and I don't even think we should dwell on it." It took a few more days for the Lott remarks to get critical reviews in most major national newspapers and on major tele- vision news programs. Several white commentators deserve credit for their critical analyses of Lott's actions early on. One of the first colum- INTRODUCTION nists to examine the story critically was Salon.com columnist Joe Cona- son, who suggested that "the attitude that ignores or downplays Lott's re- marks is what used to be called 'institutional racism.' "^ Clearly, such critical assessments of Senator Lott's racialized remarks and actions in- dicate that there is still significant debate within the white male elite over how to discuss and handle the continuing reality of racial prejudice and discrimination in the United States. In this incident we see that numer- ous white men disagree with the subtly or overtly racist actions and strat- egies of yet other whites, and will indeed speak out about them. Clearly, there is diversity of opinion within the white male elite on racial matters. As we will see in the chapters that follow, the nearly one hundred re- spondents in our sample provide much insight into how white men in the upper reaches of U.S. society think about a significant range of racial issues. While only a few are from the top echelons of the national elite, most are powerful or infiuential men, at least in their local communities. Moreover, while they share the views and opinions of ordinary white Americans on many racial issues, they often seem more complex and nu- anced in their views. Most also differ in that they have a greater ability to shape community and national views on racial matters than do most Americans. We will also see that, as was the case among the prominent whites debating the Trent Lott episode, there is significant diversity in their views and understanding of racial matters. One significant find- ing is that almost none of our respondents share Trent Lott's nostalgia for a time of legal segregation and blatantly racist discrimination. They therefore demonstrate that there has been a major shift in this regard among whites in the upper reaches of U.S. society. Many of them seem critical of the openly racist past and view the move away from the era of legal segregation in positive terms. Indeed, numerous respondents are willing to take, at least some of the time, interpretive positions contrary to the white majority's views on racial matters. Still, as we will also see, many of these men are now hesitant about, or opposed to, aggressive efforts to continue in the direction of eradicating racial inequality. And only a handful, albeit a significant handful, report that they have spoken out routinely and aggressively against the forms of racial prejudice and discrimination that they encounter in their daily lives. In our view, this latter group of white men suggests the direction in which the country's white population and leadership now need to move.
The list of books you might like
