The first thing you should know about me is that I read pretty slowly. I take lots of notes and need to take lots of thinking breaks. Anyway, I just finished Chapter 1, which is titled "Overview: The Roots of the Racial Wealth Divide."
So. Chapter 1 starts by explaining the book's position on the racial wealth divide, which is that to truly explore the issue of a wealth divide, we can't just focus on income, we must look deeply at the issue of assets. This is because income can change quickly, rising and sinking for a variety of different reasons. However, data on assets within families is much more stable over time and speaks to historical issues. Furthermore, a quick look at data by group shows us that white people tend to inherit wealth from their families, whereas people of color do not tend to have much inherited wealth. (And "most private wealth in the United States was inherited." Of course, here, "inheriting" is not limited to receiving money from a loved one posthumously, but also the passing of money from one generation to the next casually through help on a down payment or paying college tuition, etc.)
Authors also explain in this chapter that the book uses medians instead of means when looking at financial statistics because especially in white communities, the high end of asset-holders is so high that it would invalidate the low end completely if these were merely averaged together.
This chapter is all about positioning. I learned about the racial wealth gap, how it has always existed, and how it continues to exist in spite of widespread public belief in the contrary. This, I feel, is the most elegantly-made point in this chapter. The authors explain that public opinion on inequality seems to be commonly attached to the fact that legislation such as the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s exists, thus putting the onus for achieving equality on the individual. I imagine someone thinking: "Go get that law enforced for yourself!"
Looking at the individual alone helps us to focus more on measures like income, whether or not the individual's needs are being met, etc., when the real question at hand is systemic. What are systems doing to help or hinder people in amassing assets, and are systems behaving differently towards different groups of people?
Naturally, we need only some quick snapshots through time to see that US history has favored white people in gaining and keeping assets. The dates listed in this chapter are divided by legislation that may have affected white, African American, Latino, and Asian people, in the 1850s and 1950s. These would be an excellent addition to the timeline exercises I know are out there for race and immigrants' rights workshops.
The chapter also begins to tackle the issue of disenfranchised poor white people, how terms such as "white privilege" may not seem so relatable, and how partisan politics have manipulated this group in particular. We also see examples of how "colorblind" practices intended to help "all people" (such as first-time home-buyer programs) will still unintentionally give white families a bigger boost than other families.
They also cite this episode of Primetime Live. Let's watch it!
The writers begin here to throw out an idea I expect will be explained in more detail later:
"We envision smaller inequality overall, real opportunity for all, and an economy with a higher floor But within this fairer economy people of color would be fully enfranchised, with as much economic security as white people. And that will only happen if boosts are given to help the targets of past discrimination accumulate wealth."
No comments:
Post a Comment