Race And Power

I have been spending a lot of time during the last two months reading about culture, equity/equality, and race. Because of my predisposition towards social justice and equanimity, I have been giving much thought to the causes and effects of racism in the United States. It is my own personal belief that in order to eliminate an unwanted effect, its cause must first be addressed and, if possible, negated. Once the underlying cause is eliminated its effect will naturally also disappear.
        One particular article that I have read recently solidified my understanding on the foundation of race relations in this country. The article, written by Gloria Ladson-Billings, was Culture Versus Citizenship: The Challenge of Racialized Citizenship in the United States and is found in the book Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives edited by James Banks. I am not going to regurgitate here what the article said, but rather, express my own thoughts about racism in the light of Ladson-Billings’ explanation of the roots of race relations in the U.S.
        Race is a construct of the mind. Biologically all humans are virtually the same. Although it is true that we tend to favor the dominant traits of our parents, the line of race is quickly blurred when a so-called interracial couple has a child. Clearly, such a case indicates that race is not a biological imperative and therefore is a social and mental construct. Race being a false social construct was not the viewpoint of Europeans as they sought to colonize the Americas (and in fact the rest of the world). According to Ladson-Billings those Europeans adopted an Aristotelian notion of “natural slavery” in which a human/nonhuman dichotomy allowed for the subjugation of non-European/non-Christian cultures. (Banks, 2007, p. 103)
        The Buddhist explanation as to why we create such a construct is rather simple. Every creature, regardless of the status to which it is born, seeks to avoid suffering and gain happiness. Therefore this false construct elevated the European expansionists’ own status and justified their subjugation of others and their plundering of wealth in order to gain comfort.
        This attitude of Europeans holding themselves as above and separate from people of other cultures naturally bled into the creation of law within the newly formed United States of America. “In the United States in the 18th century, women, children, and enslaved Africans were property” (Banks, 2007, p. 109). The classification of Africans (and indeed women) in such a way continues to influence the dynamics of power to this day.
        If there is one thing for certain about human nature it is that we stubbornly adhere to those things that gain us a sense of control over our own lives. This sense of control makes us feel somehow safer and gives order to a chaotic world. The White male supremacy created as Europeans conquered the western world is being stubbornly adhered to in order to maintain the status quo of economic dominance of the White majority. In 2002 “the median net worth of white households was $88,651, or 11 times greater than Hispanic families ($7,932) and 14 times greater than African-American families ($5,988) (Goldenberg, 2004). Clearly, the distribution of wealth is lop-sided and in favor of White Americans.
But how does wealth equate to power? According to G. William Domhoff, Professor of Sociology at the University of California at Santa Cruz:

Wealth can be seen as a "resource" that is very useful in exercising power. That's obvious when we think of donations to political parties, payments to lobbyists, and grants to experts who are employed to think up new policies beneficial to the wealthy. Wealth also can be useful in shaping the general social environment to the benefit of the wealthy, whether through hiring public relations firms or donating money for universities, museums, music halls, and art galleries. (Domhoff, 2005)

Clearly then, White institutionalized racism is a function of an imbalance of wealth that has its roots in colonialism and is naturally self-perpetuating as those who control most of the resources struggle to maintain their control in order to ensure themselves comfort and safety within the larger society. However, I would argue that the unequal distribution of wealth and power results in the exact opposite effect.
        Although it may be true that if a person gains enough wealth and power he or she could insulate his or herself somewhat from the dangers of the world, that type of protection is not only difficult to achieve but also costly to maintain and arguably relegates the individual to a shallow, isolated existence. That kind of guarded lifestyle is afforded by only the wealthiest class of people who are well entrenched in their own affluence. For the rest of us it is a different story.
        White institutionalized racism makes for an unpleasant and even dangerous world for the middle and working classes of all cultural backgrounds. Those with the greatest wealth and power maintain their status by systematically driving a wedge between those with limited power. Race, culture, and religion are common tools used by those who wish to gain influence over the majority of a population. By hording and withholding resources in the form of jobs and a living wage for the working classes, the top 20% of the individuals that control 80% of the wealth maintain a false sense of necessary competition that polarizes the lower classes. This polarization most typically, and in my opinion purposefully, manifests itself as racial bigotry and distrust and creates a climate of anger and violence amongst the working class. This racial tension then serves to benefit those who have power and live in comfort while is destructive and dangerous to those who do not.
        The root cause of inequality and racism would logically then be the stagnation of resource at the top of the economic food chain. Cutting the cause of racism would then be the movement of resource from the few to the many. As long as resources are tied up by the wealthiest, tension amongst the middle and working classes will continue. With the free flow of resource, inequities in education and other social programs can be addressed. Without the movement of resource, there will always be a struggle amongst the lower classes, manifesting in cultural tension, for that which is limited by the upper class.

References

Banks, J. A., Ed. (2007). Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.
Domhoff, G. W. (2005). Who Rules America? Wealth Income and Power. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Goldenberg, S. (2004). Guardian.co.uk. US wealth gap grows for ethnic minorities. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/19/usa.suzannegoldenberg