[News] The Absurdity (and Consistency) of White Denial

Anti-Imperialist News news at freedomarchives.org
Mon Apr 24 19:33:00 EDT 2006


April 24, 2006

The Absurdity (and Consistency) of White Denial

What Kind of Card is Race?


Recently, I was asked by someone in the audience of one of my 
speeches, whether or not I believed that racism--though certainly a 
problem--might also be something conjured up by people of color in 
situations where the charge was inappropriate. In other words, did I 
believe that occasionally folks play the so-called race card, as a 
ploy to gain sympathy or detract from their own shortcomings? In the 
process of his query, the questioner made his own opinion all too 
clear (an unambiguous yes), and in that, he was not alone, as 
indicated by the reaction of others in the crowd, as well as survey 
data confirming that the belief in black malingering about racism is 
nothing if not ubiquitous.

It's a question I'm asked often, especially when there are several 
high-profile news events transpiring, in which race informs part of 
the narrative. Now is one of those times, as a few recent incidents 
demonstrate: Is racism, for example, implicated in the alleged rape 
of a young black woman by white members of the Duke University 
lacrosse team? Was racism implicated in Congresswoman Cynthia 
McKinney's recent confrontation with a member of the Capitol police? 
Or is racism involved in the ongoing investigation into whether or 
not Barry Bonds--as he is poised to eclipse white slugger Babe Ruth 
on the all-time home run list--might have used steroids to enhance 
his performance?*

Although the matter is open to debate in any or all of these cases, 
white folks have been quick to accuse blacks who answer in the 
affirmative of playing the race card, as if their conclusions have 
been reached not because of careful consideration of the facts as 
they see them, but rather, because of some irrational (even 
borderline paranoid) tendency to see racism everywhere. So too, 
discussions over immigration, "terrorist" profiling, and Katrina and 
its aftermath often turn on issues of race, and so give rise to the 
charge that as regards these subjects, people of color are 
"overreacting" when they allege racism in one or another circumstance.

Asked about the tendency for people of color to play the "race card," 
I responded as I always do: First, by noting that the regularity with 
which whites respond to charges of racism by calling said charges a 
ploy, suggests that the race card is, at best, equivalent to the two 
of diamonds. In other words, it's not much of a card to play, calling 
into question why anyone would play it (as if it were really going to 
get them somewhere). Secondly, I pointed out that white reluctance to 
acknowledge racism isn't new, and it isn't something that manifests 
only in situations where the racial aspect of an incident is 
arguable. Fact is, whites have always doubted claims of racism at the 
time they were being made, no matter how strong the evidence, as will 
be seen below. Finally, I concluded by suggesting that whatever 
"card" claims of racism may prove to be for the black and brown, the 
denial card is far and away the trump, and whites play it regularly: 
a subject to which we will return.

Turning Injustice into a Game of Chance: The Origins of Race as "Card"

First, let us consider the history of this notion: namely, that the 
"race card" is something people of color play so as to distract the 
rest of us, or to gain sympathy. For most Americans, the phrase 
"playing the race card" entered the national lexicon during the O.J. 
Simpson trial. Robert Shapiro, one of Simpson's attorneys famously 
claimed, in the aftermath of his client's acquittal, that co-counsel 
Johnnie Cochran had "played the race card, and dealt it from the 
bottom of the deck." The allegation referred to Cochran's bringing up 
officer Mark Fuhrman's regular use of the 'n-word' as potentially 
indicative of his propensity to frame Simpson. To Shapiro, whose own 
views of his client's innocence apparently shifted over time, the 
issue of race had no place in the trial, and even if Fuhrman was a 
racist, this fact had no bearing on whether or not O.J. had killed 
his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. In other words, the idea that O.J. had 
been framed because of racism made no sense and to bring it up was to 
interject race into an arena where it was, or should have been, irrelevant.

That a white man like Shapiro could make such an argument, however, 
speaks to the widely divergent way in which whites and blacks view 
our respective worlds. For people of color--especially African 
Americans--the idea that racist cops might frame members of their 
community is no abstract notion, let alone an exercise in irrational 
conspiracy theorizing. Rather, it speaks to a social reality about 
which blacks are acutely aware. Indeed, there has been a history of 
such misconduct on the part of law enforcement, and for black folks 
to think those bad old days have ended is, for many, to let down 
their guard to the possibility of real and persistent injury (1).

So if a racist cop is the lead detective in a case, and the one who 
discovers blood evidence implicating a black man accused of killing 
two white people, there is a logical alarm bell that goes off in the 
head of most any black person, but which would remain every bit as 
silent in the mind of someone who was white. And this too is 
understandable: for most whites, police are the helpful folks who get 
your cat out of the tree, or take you around in their patrol car for 
fun. For us, the idea of brutality or misconduct on the part of such 
persons seems remote, to the point of being fanciful. It seems the 
stuff of bad TV dramas, or at the very least, the past--that always 
remote place to which we can consign our national sins and 
predations, content all the while that whatever demons may have 
lurked in those earlier times have long since been vanquished.

To whites, blacks who alleged racism in the O.J. case were being 
absurd, or worse, seeking any excuse to let a black killer off the 
hook--ignoring that blacks on juries vote to convict black people of 
crimes every day in this country. And while allegations of black 
"racial bonding" with the defendant were made regularly after the 
acquittal in Simpson's criminal trial, no such bonding, this time 
with the victims, was alleged when a mostly white jury found O.J. 
civilly liable a few years later. Only blacks can play the race card, 
apparently; only they think in racial terms, at least to hear white 
America tell it.

Anything but Racism: White Reluctance to Accept the Evidence

Since the O.J. trial, it seems as though almost any allegation of 
racism has been met with the same dismissive reply from the bulk of 
whites in the U.S. According to national surveys, more than three out 
of four whites refuse to believe that discrimination is any real 
problem in America (2). That most whites remain unconvinced of 
racism's salience--with as few as six percent believing it to be a 
"very serious problem," according to one poll in the mid 90s 
(3)--suggests that racism-as-card makes up an awfully weak hand. 
While folks of color consistently articulate their belief that racism 
is a real and persistent presence in their own lives, these claims 
have had very little effect on white attitudes. As such, how could 
anyone believe that people of color would somehow pull the claim out 
of their hat, as if it were guaranteed to make white America sit up 
and take notice? If anything, it is likely to be ignored, or even 
attacked, and in a particularly vicious manner.

That bringing up racism (even with copious documentation) is far from 
an effective "card" to play in order to garner sympathy, is evidenced 
by the way in which few people even become aware of the studies 
confirming its existence. How many Americans do you figure have even 
heard, for example, that black youth arrested for drug possession for 
the first time are incarcerated at a rate that is forty-eight times 
greater than the rate for white youth, even when all other factors 
surrounding the crime are identical (4)?

How many have heard that persons with "white sounding names," 
according to a massive national study, are fifty percent more likely 
to be called back for a job interview than those with "black 
sounding" names, even when all other credentials are the same (5)?

How many know that white men with a criminal record are slightly more 
likely to be called back for a job interview than black men without 
one, even when the men are equally qualified, and present themselves 
to potential employers in an identical fashion (6)?

How many have heard that according to the Justice Department, Black 
and Latino males are three times more likely than white males to have 
their vehicles stopped and searched by police, even though white 
males are over four times more likely to have illegal contraband in 
our cars on the occasions when we are searched (7)?

How many are aware that black and Latino students are about half as 
likely as whites to be placed in advanced or honors classes in 
school, and twice as likely to be placed in remedial classes? Or that 
even when test scores and prior performance would justify higher 
placement, students of color are far less likely to be placed in 
honors classes (8)? Or that students of color are 2-3 times more 
likely than whites to be suspended or expelled from school, even 
though rates of serious school rule infractions do not differ to any 
significant degree between racial groups (9)?

Fact is, few folks have heard any of these things before, suggesting 
how little impact scholarly research on the subject of racism has had 
on the general public, and how difficult it is to make whites, in 
particular, give the subject a second thought.

Perhaps this is why, contrary to popular belief, research indicates 
that people of color are actually reluctant to allege racism, be it 
on the job, or in schools, or anywhere else. Far from "playing the 
race card" at the drop of a hat, it is actually the case (again, 
according to scholarly investigation, as opposed to the conventional 
wisdom of the white public), that black and brown folks typically 
"stuff" their experiences with discrimination and racism, only making 
an allegation of such treatment after many, many incidents have 
transpired, about which they said nothing for fear of being ignored 
or attacked (10). Precisely because white denial has long trumped 
claims of racism, people of color tend to underreport their 
experiences with racial bias, rather than exaggerate them. Again, 
when it comes to playing a race card, it is more accurate to say that 
whites are the dealers with the loaded decks, shooting down any 
evidence of racism as little more than the fantasies of unhinged 
blacks, unwilling to take personal responsibility for their own 
problems in life.

Blaming the Victims for White Indifference

Occasionally, white denial gets creative, and this it does by 
pretending to come wrapped in sympathy for those who allege racism in 
the modern era. In other words, while steadfastly rejecting what 
people of color say they experience--in effect suggesting that they 
lack the intelligence and/or sanity to accurately interpret their own 
lives--such commentators seek to assure others that whites really do 
care about racism, but simply refuse to pin the label on incidents 
where it doesn't apply. In fact, they'll argue, one of the reasons 
that whites have developed compassion fatigue on this issue is 
precisely because of the overuse of the concept, combined with what 
we view as unfair reactions to racism (such as affirmative action 
efforts which have, ostensibly, turned us into the victims of racial 
bias). If blacks would just stop playing the card where it doesn't 
belong, and stop pushing for so-called preferential treatment, whites 
would revert back to our prior commitment to equal opportunity, and 
our heartfelt concern about the issue of racism.

Don't laugh. This is actually the position put forward recently by 
James Taranto, of the Wall Street Journal, who in January suggested 
that white reluctance to embrace black claims of racism was really 
the fault of blacks themselves, and the larger civil rights 
establishment (11). As Taranto put it: "Why do blacks and whites have 
such divergent views on racial matters? We would argue that it is 
because of the course that racial policies have taken over the past 
forty years." He then argues that by trying to bring about racial 
equality--but failing to do so because of "aggregate differences in 
motivation, inclination and aptitude" between different racial 
groups--policies like affirmative action have bred "frustration and 
resentment" among blacks, and "indifference" among whites, who decide 
not to think about race at all, rather than engage an issue that 
seems so toxic to them. In other words, whites think blacks use 
racism as a crutch for their own inadequacies, and then demand 
programs and policies that fail to make things much better, all the 
while discriminating against them as whites. In such an atmosphere, 
is it any wonder that the two groups view the subject matter differently?

But the fundamental flaw in Taranto's argument is its 
suggestion--implicit though it may be--that prior to the creation of 
affirmative action, white folks were mostly on board the racial 
justice and equal opportunity train, and were open to hearing about 
claims of racism from persons of color. Yet nothing could be further 
from the truth. White denial is not a form of backlash to the past 
forty years of civil rights legislation, and white indifference to 
claims of racism did not only recently emerge, as if from a previous 
place where whites and blacks had once seen the world similarly. 
Simply put: whites in every generation have thought there was no real 
problem with racism, irrespective of the evidence, and in every 
generation we have been wrong.

Denial as an Intergenerational Phenomenon

So, for example, what does it say about white rationality and white 
collective sanity, that in 1963--at a time when in retrospect all 
would agree racism was rampant in the United States, and before the 
passage of modern civil rights legislation--nearly two-thirds of 
whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same 
as whites in their communities--almost the same number as say this 
now, some forty-plus years later? What does it suggest about the 
extent of white folks' disconnection from the real world, that in 
1962, eighty-five percent of whites said black children had just as 
good a chance as white children to get a good education in their 
communities (12)? Or that in May, 1968, seventy percent of whites 
said that blacks were treated the same as whites in their 
communities, while only seventeen percent said blacks were treated 
"not very well" and only 3.5 percent said blacks were treated badly? (13)?

What does it say about white folks' historic commitment to equal 
opportunity--and which Taranto would have us believe has only been 
rendered inoperative because of affirmative action--that in 1963, 
three-fourths of white Americans told Newsweek, "The Negro is moving 
too fast" in his demands for equality (14)? Or that in October 1964, 
nearly two-thirds of whites said that the Civil Rights Act should be 
enforced gradually, with an emphasis on persuading employers not to 
discriminate, as opposed to forcing compliance with equal opportunity 
requirements (15)?

What does it say about whites' tenuous grip on mental health that in 
mid-August 1969, forty-four percent of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup 
National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did 
to get a good paying job--two times as many as said they would have a 
worse chance? Or that forty-two percent said blacks had a better 
chance for a good education than whites, while only seventeen percent 
said they would have a worse opportunity for a good education, and 
eighty percent saying blacks would have an equal or better chance? In 
that same survey, seventy percent said blacks could have improved 
conditions in the "slums" if they had wanted to, and were more than 
twice as likely to blame blacks themselves, as opposed to 
discrimination, for high unemployment in the black community (16).

In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts 
(looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were 
convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even forty years ago, 
whites were more likely to think that blacks had better 
opportunities, than to believe the opposite (and obviously accurate) 
thing: namely, that whites were advantaged in every realm of American life.

Truthfully, this tendency for whites to deny the extent of racism and 
racial injustice likely extends back far before the 1960s. Although 
public opinion polls in previous decades rarely if ever asked 
questions about the extent of racial bias or discrimination, 
anecdotal surveys of white opinion suggest that at no time have 
whites in the U.S. ever thought blacks or other people of color were 
getting a bad shake. White Southerners were all but convinced that 
their black slaves, for example, had it good, and had no reason to 
complain about their living conditions or lack of freedoms. After 
emancipation, but during the introduction of Jim Crow laws and strict 
Black Codes that limited where African Americans could live and work, 
white newspapers would regularly editorialize about the "warm 
relations" between whites and blacks, even as thousands of blacks 
were being lynched by their white compatriots.

 From Drapetomania to Victim Syndrome -- Viewing Resistance as Mental Illness

Indeed, what better evidence of white denial (even dementia) could 
one need than that provided by "Doctor" Samuel Cartwright, a 
well-respected physician of the 19th century, who was so convinced of 
slavery's benign nature, that he concocted and named a disease to 
explain the tendency for many slaves to run away from their loving 
masters. Drapetomania, he called it: a malady that could be cured by 
keeping the slave in a "child-like state," and taking care not to 
treat them as equals, while yet striving not to be too cruel. Mild 
whipping was, to Cartwright, the best cure of all. So there you have 
it: not only is racial oppression not a problem; even worse, those 
blacks who resist it, or refuse to bend to it, or complain about it 
in any fashion, are to be viewed not only as exaggerating their 
condition, but indeed, as mentally ill (17).

And lest one believe that the tendency for whites to psychologically 
pathologize blacks who complain of racism is only a relic of ancient 
history, consider a much more recent example, which demonstrates the 
continuity of this tendency among members of the dominant racial 
group in America.

A few years ago, I served as an expert witness and consultant in a 
discrimination lawsuit against a school district in Washington State. 
Therein, numerous examples of individual and institutional racism 
abounded: from death threats made against black students to which the 
school district's response was pitifully inadequate, to racially 
disparate "ability tracking" and disciplinary action. In preparation 
for trial (which ultimately never took place as the district finally 
agreed to settle the case for several million dollars and a 
commitment to policy change), the school system's "psychological 
experts" evaluated dozens of the plaintiffs (mostly students as well 
as some of their parents) so as to determine the extent of damage 
done to them as a result of the racist mistreatment. As one of the 
plaintiff's experts, I reviewed the reports of said psychologists, 
and while I was not surprised to see them downplay the damage done to 
the black folks in this case, I was somewhat startled by how quickly 
they went beyond the call of duty to actually suggest that several of 
the plaintiffs exhibited "paranoid" tendencies and symptoms of 
borderline personality disorder. That having one's life threatened 
might make one a bit paranoid apparently never entered the minds of 
the white doctors. That facing racism on a regular basis might lead 
one to act out, in a way these "experts" would then see as a 
personality disorder, also seems to have escaped them. In this way, 
whites have continued to see mental illness behind black claims of 
victimization, even when that victimization is blatant.

In fact, we've even created a name for it: "victimization syndrome." 
Although not yet part of the DSM-IV (the diagnostic manual used by 
the American Psychiatric Association so as to evaluate patients), it 
is nonetheless a malady from which blacks suffer, to hear a lot of 
whites tell it. Whenever racism is brought up, such whites insist 
that blacks are being encouraged (usually by the civil rights 
establishment) to adopt a victim mentality, and to view themselves as 
perpetual targets of oppression. By couching their rejection of the 
claims of racism in these terms, conservatives are able to parade as 
friends to black folks, only concerned about them and hoping to free 
them from the debilitating mindset of victimization that liberals 
wish to see them adopt.

Aside from the inherently paternalistic nature of this position, 
notice too how concern over adopting a victim mentality is very 
selectively trotted out by the right. So, for example, when crime 
victims band together--and even form what they call victim's rights 
groups--no one on the right tells them to get over it, or suggests 
that by continuing to incessantly bleat about their kidnapped child 
or murdered loved one, such folks are falling prey to a victim 
mentality that should be resisted. No indeed: crime victims are 
venerated, considered experts on proper crime policy (as evidenced by 
how often their opinions are sought out on the matter by the national 
press and politicians), and given nothing but sympathy.

Likewise, when American Jews raise a cry over perceived anti-Jewish 
bigotry, or merely teach their children (as I was taught) about the 
European Holocaust, replete with a slogan of "Never again!" none of 
the folks who lament black "victimology" suggests that we too are 
wallowing in a victimization mentality, or somehow at risk for a 
syndrome of the same name.

In other words, it is blacks and blacks alone (with the occasional 
American Indian or Latino thrown in for good measure when and if they 
get too uppity) that get branded with the victim mentality label. Not 
quite drapetomania, but also not far enough from the kind of thinking 
that gave rise to it: in both cases, rooted in the desire of white 
America to reject what all logic and evidence suggests is true. 
Further, the selective branding of blacks as perpetual victims, 
absent the application of the pejorative to Jews or crime victims (or 
the families of 9/11 victims or other acts of terrorism), suggests 
that at some level white folks simply don't believe black suffering 
matters. We refuse to view blacks as fully human and deserving of 
compassion as we do these other groups, for whom victimization has 
been a reality as well. It is not that whites care about blacks and 
simply wish them not to adopt a self-imposed mental straightjacket; 
rather, it is that at some level we either don't care, or at least 
don't equate the pain of racism even with the pain caused by being 
mugged, or having your art collection confiscated by the Nazis, let 
alone with the truly extreme versions of crime and anti-Semitic wrongdoing.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Wrong as Always

White denial has become such a widespread phenomenon nowadays, that 
most whites are unwilling to entertain even the mildest of 
suggestions that racism and racial inequity might still be issues. To 
wit, a recent survey from the University of Chicago, in which whites 
and blacks were asked two questions about Hurricane Katrina and the 
governmental response to the tragedy. First, respondents were asked 
whether they believed the government response would have been 
speedier had the victims been white. Not surprisingly, only twenty 
percent of whites answered in the affirmative. But while that 
question is at least conceivably arguable, the next question seems so 
weakly worded that virtually anyone could have answered yes without 
committing too much in the way of recognition that racism was a 
problem. Yet the answers given reveal the depths of white 
intransigence to consider the problem a problem at all.

So when asked if we believed the Katrina tragedy showed that there 
was a lesson to be learned about racial inequality in America--any 
lesson at all--while ninety percent of blacks said yes, only 
thirty-eight percent of whites agreed (18). To us, Katrina said 
nothing about race whatsoever, even as blacks were disproportionately 
affected; even as there was a clear racial difference in terms of who 
was stuck in New Orleans and who was able to escape; even as the 
media focused incessantly on reports of black violence in the 
Superdome and Convention Center that proved later to be false; even 
as blacks have been having a much harder time moving back to New 
Orleans, thanks to local and federal foot-dragging and the plans of 
economic elites in the city to destroy homes in the most damaged 
(black) neighborhoods and convert them to non-residential (or higher 
rent) uses.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, has to do with race nowadays, in the 
eyes of white America writ large. But the obvious question is this: 
if we have never seen racism as a real problem, contemporary to the 
time in which the charges are being made, and if in all generations 
past we were obviously wrong to the point of mass delusion in 
thinking this way, what should lead us to conclude that now, at long 
last, we've become any more astute at discerning social reality than 
we were before? Why should we trust our own perceptions or instincts 
on the matter, when we have run up such an amazingly bad track record 
as observers of the world in which we live? In every era, black folks 
said they were the victims of racism and they were right. In every 
era, whites have said the problem was exaggerated, and we have been wrong.

Unless we wish to conclude that black insight on the matter--which 
has never to this point failed them--has suddenly converted to 
irrationality, and that white irrationality has become insight (and 
are prepared to prove this transformation by way of some analytical 
framework to explain the process), then the best advice seems to be 
that which could have been offered in past decades and centuries: 
namely, if you want to know about whether or not racism is a problem, 
it would probably do you best to ask the folks who are its targets. 
They, after all, are the ones who must, as a matter of survival, 
learn what it is, and how and when it's operating. We whites on the 
other hand, are the persons who have never had to know a thing about 
it, and who--for reasons psychological, philosophical and 
material--have always had a keen interest in covering it up.

In short, and let us be clear on it: race is not a card. It 
determines whom the dealer is, and who gets dealt.

Tim Wise is the author of two new books: 
Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull Press, 
2005), and 
Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He 
lived in New Orleans from 1986-1996. He can be reached at: 
<mailto:timjwise at msn.com>timjwise at msn.com

* Personally, I have no idea whether or not Barry Bonds has used 
anabolic steroids during the course of his career, nor do I think the 
evidence marshaled thus far on the matter is conclusive, either way. 
But I do find it interesting that many are calling for the placement 
of an asterisk next to Bonds' name in the record books, especially 
should he eclipse Ruth, or later, Hank Aaron, in terms of career home 
runs. The asterisk, we are told, would differentiate Bonds from other 
athletes, the latter of which, presumably accomplished their feats 
without performance enhancers. Yet, while it is certainly true that 
Aaron's 755 home runs came without any form of performance 
enhancement (indeed, he, like other black ball-players had to face 
overt hostility in the early years of their careers, and even as he 
approached Ruth's record of 714, he was receiving death threats), for 
Ruth, such a claim would be laughable. Ruth, as with any white 
baseball player from the early 1890s to 1947, benefited from the 
"performance enhancement" of not having to compete against black 
athletes, whose abilities often far surpassed their own. Ruth didn't 
have to face black pitchers, nor vie for batting titles against black 
home run sluggers. Until white fans demand an asterisk next to the 
names of every one of their white baseball heroes -- Ruth, Cobb, 
DiMaggio, and Williams, for starters -- who played under apartheid 
rules, the demand for such a blemish next to the name of Bonds can 
only be seen as highly selective, hypocritical, and ultimately 
racist. White privilege and protection from black competition 
certainly did more for those men's game than creotine or other 
substances could ever do for the likes of Barry Bonds.


(1) There is plenty of information about police racism, misconduct 
and brutality, both in historical and contemporary terms, available 
from any number of sources. Among them, see Kristian Williams, Our 
Enemies in Blue. Soft Skull Press, 2004; and online at the Stolen 
Lives Project: http://stolenlives.org.

(2) Washington Post. October 9, 1995: A22

(3) Ibid.

(4) "Young White Offenders get lighter treatment," 2000. The 
Tennessean. April 26: 8A.

(5) Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "Are Emily and 
Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment in 
Labor Market Discrimination." June 20.

(6) Pager, Devah. 2003. "The Mark of a Criminal Record." American 
Journal of Sociology. Volume 108: 5, March: 937-75.

(7) Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, 
Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 
National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice 
Statistics), April 2005.

(8) Gordon, Rebecca. 1998. Education and Race. Oakland: Applied 
Research Center: 48-9; Fischer, Claude S. et al., 1996. Inequality by 
Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 
University Press: 163; Steinhorn, Leonard and Barabara Diggs-Brown, 
1999. By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the 
Reality of Race. NY: Dutton: 95-6.

(9) Skiba, Russell J. et al., The Color of Discipline: Sources of 
Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment. Indiana 
Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report SRS1, June 2000; U.S. 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior 
Surveillance System: Youth 2003, Online Comprehensive Results, 2004.

(10) Terrell, Francis and Sandra L. Terrell, 1999. "Cultural 
Identification and Cultural Mistrust: Some Findings and 
Implications," in Advances in African American Psychology, Reginald 
Jones, ed., Hampton VA: Cobb & Henry; Fuegen, Kathleen, 2000. 
"Defining Discrimination in the Personal/Group Discrimination 
Discrepancy," Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. September; Miller, 
Carol T. 2001. "A Theoretical Perspective on Coping With Stigma," 
Journal of Social Issues. Spring; Feagin, Joe, Hernan Vera and 
Nikitah Imani, 1996. The Agony of Education: Black Students in White 
Colleges and Universities. NY: Routledge.

(11) Taranto, James. 2006. "The Truth About Race in America--IV," 
Online Journal (Wall Street Journal), January 6.

(12) The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll Social Audit, 2001. 
Black-White Relations in the United States, 2001 Update, July 10: 7-9.

(13) The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll, #761, May, 1968

(14) "How Whites Feel About Negroes: A Painful American Dilemma," 
Newsweek, October 21, 1963: 56

(15) The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll #699, October, 1964

(16) Newsweek/Gallup Organization, National Opinion Survey, August 19, 1969

(17) Cartwright, Samuel. 1851. "Diseases and Peculiarities of the 
Negro Race," DeBow's Review. (Southern and Western States: New 
Orleans), Volume XI.

(18) Ford, Glen and Peter Campbell, 2006. "Katrina: A Study-Black 
Consensus, White Dispute," The Black Commentator, Issue 165, January 5.

The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20060424/cb711bc6/attachment.html>

More information about the News mailing list