In order to properly analyze and breakdown this discussion I wanted to break the readings into 3 separate sections. First, I will be covering the Racial Preference Licensing Act, followed by The Chronicle of the Space Traders, then ending with the Racial Realism piece.
Initially, when I started reading the Racial Preference Licensing Act it stated, “Under the new act, all employers, proprietors of public facilities, and owners and managers … could obtain a license authorizing the holders or their agents to exclude or separate persons on the basis of race and color” (pg. 46), and I thought there’s no way it’s promoting segregation again. But it wasn’t until I kept reading further that I became more curious about this concept. You see, there’s a section in the work where it states, “Second rule of race relations, civil right policies are often symbolic rather than substantive… they will infrequently be enforced for blacks, though in altered interpretations they may serve the needs of whites” (pg. 49).This immediately made me think of Affirmative Action and how just by changing the perspective of how you view a law can drastically change the implementation of it. This, I fear, has been happening too long within the United States where we use our legal system and agencies to help black people but instead they never completely accomplish what they were trying to do. What this piece makes the reader ask is what if there was a policy that ensured benefits for black people without disrupting the heavily white dominated society we live in. There’s a lot more to it than just owning a license. For instance, “License fees and commissions were placed in an “equality fund” used to underwrite black businesses, offer no-interest mortgage loans for black homeowners, and provide scholarships for black students seeking college and vocational education” (pg. 47). Not only this but, “holders are required to pay to a government commission a tax equal to 3% of the income derived from employing, serving, or selling to whites during each quarter in which a policy of racial preference was in effect (pg. 46). Basically, anytime that business helps a white person it will cost them financially. Furthermore, if a person does purchase this license then they are obligated to display it or have people aware that they have it. This is useful because now black people don’t have to worry about whether or not they will be discriminated against based on color by the employer (pg. 53). I also find it useful because it tells everyone you are openly racist. By owning this license you are subject to people having their own opinion about you and your business. If you aren’t racist, why buy the license to begin with? Another point this article made was how this law dilutes both financial and psychological benefits of racism (pg. 53). For example, a person who does purchase this license to prevent black people from working at their establishment, is indirectly helping black people because the funds go back to them. People will become less likely to buy their white privilege.
This doesn’t mean this license is completely beneficial. I do have some concerning points in regards to how it will work. Within the article it talks about those who do discriminate without the license are eligible for punishment under the RICO status (pg. 47). My question is how exactly would they test to make sure someone is actually discriminating? If a business has no black workers, without the license, does it automatically mean they are breaking the law? My other problem with this license is the exact purpose of it. You are allowing someone to openly discriminate against someone without the fear of punishment by law. This can end up badly as a lot of the major companies can just purchase this license and never hire any black people. Now, any black person who wishes to become an astronaut, doctor, or take part in some financial industry will never be able to do so. The job availability will drop drastically.
The next article, The Chronicle of the Space Traders, I found to be more entertaining as it was presented in a more story format. Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean there aren’t any significant messages. This work captured my reaction perfectly when it stated, “Does the promise of restored prosperity justify our sending away fifteen percent of our citizens to Lord knows what fate?” (pg. 60). I like this quote because I found myself questioning what would this country look like if black people really did disappear. It mentions how black people are responsible for a lot of the financial cost of this country. Yes, but at the same time it’s not as if we put ourselves in that position. I like to use the game analogy. As black people within this country, we are playing a game, we understand the rules but we cannot change them and the rules are ever-changing whether we are ready or not. The most we can do is learn the rulebook and adapt to win. There were some other good points made in this work. I liked the insertion by Golightly, because he doesn’t only highlight what will happen as a result of this “banishment” but also how in the past, previous measures to return black people to their homeland was a considerable option (pg. 62). Feeling unwanted isn’t anything new in this country. What this article also serves to do is show how this nation feels about certain demographics of people. It mentions this, but do you really think that if the aliens came down asking for all citizens who identify as white to come with them there would be little to no resistance. Another scary thought would be considering there were no aliens at all. Let’s say one day congress decided to draft an economic relief bill that included the adoption of a new selective service system. Do you think this bill would pass if it meant “benefiting” the country?
The last reading, Racial Realism, I found to be dismal and lacking solutions. This article reminds me of my Civil Rights and Civil Liberties course I have taken previously where we discussed and analyzed the decisions of multiple society-changing court cases and doctrines within the US. People need to be aware that in court decisions, there will always be human bias involved. This is seen in the article where it mentions, “according to Holmes’s scientific and relativistic lines of attack, judges settled cases not by deductive reasoning, but rather by reliance on value-laden, personal beliefs. To Holmes, such judges engineered socially desirable policies based on these beliefs which, like all moral values, were wholly relative and determined by one’s particular environment” (365). I will also add to this, besides moral beliefs, it can simply be how they interpret the constitution. For instance, some judges are more textualist in a sense that they take the words of what is written and directly apply it, with little consideration of moral beliefs. This is when judges sometimes vote against what they may personally feel. I will disagree with the article on one point and that is how rulings of one case cannot be applied to another (pg. 367). Yes, not every situation is exact but that is the whole point of establishing a precedent so that it can help create a sense of order. If this wasn’t the case then nothing would ever be legitimate or hold any legal value. The reason I say this piece is dismal is when it declares, “Racial Realism makes us look historically at how black people have always been subordinate but this doesn’t leave us helpless. It “enables us to avoid despair, and free us to imagine and implement racial strategies that can bring fulfillment and even triumph” (pg. 374). I don’t like the idea of “accepting” being subordinate in order to fuel your goals. I do believe there is still hope in “rule of law”, although the article makes it clear that the law only periodically and unpredictably helps oppressed people (pg. 364). My counter to this, using the University of California v. Bakke example they offer, it’s about who is the interpreter. If Racial Realism looks back historically, then it would recognize this to be true as well. My example for this is Thurgood Marshall. See how one person was able to shift the balance of equality simply by interpreting the law. The right to vote is very powerful. If it wasn’t, my ancestors wouldn’t have died for it. All it takes is putting the right people in power. This is why Trump appointing the most Supreme Justices than any other president before him is so significant. Not only do they serve for life, but all legal proceedings and how the constitution “should be read” are left up to them and their ideals.
Overall, the readings were all interesting and thought provoking. I am curious to see what you guys have to say about them!
I found your analogy of the struggle for racial justice as a game to be very interesting, as I think it is an analogy that effectively illustrates where your perspective differs from that of Bell.
You argue that “As black people within this country, we are playing a game, we understand the rules but we cannot change them and the rules are ever-changing whether we are ready or not. The most we can do is learn the rulebook and adapt to win.” I think Bell would contend, based on his descriptions of Legal and Racial Realism, that the rules of the game do not exist outside of the game, and that the rule book should not be conceptualized as an objective set of principles, but rather as a tool written (and rewritten) in accordance with the interests of the dominant class. Even supposedly reformative amendments to the rules “are the outward manifestations of unspoken and perhaps unconscious conclusions that such remedies – if adopted – will secure, advance, or at least not harm the interests of whites in power” (49). That is to say, the game is rigged, or, to draw upon a popular turn of phrase, the house always wins.
I think that this is what Bell is referencing, when he argues that “black people have always been subordinate,” and predicts that Black people “will not be accepted as equals, a status which has eluded us as a group for more than 300 years” (Bell 374). For Bell, the continued oppression of Black people, and the continued subordination of Black life, is the very foundation of the rules of the game. Fundamentally, the game cannot be won; “Racial equality is, in fact, not a realistic goal” (Bell 363).
I liked hearing your thoughts on the readings, particularly Bell’s Racial Realism. In your post, you state, “I don’t like the idea of “accepting” being subordinate to fuel your goals.” I thought it was interesting how you said that Thurgood Marshall was an excellent example of how one man’s interpretation of the law can shift the balance of equality. It takes putting the right people in power. For me, I really focused on the parts of the article that touched on Clarence Thomas and how “the choice of a black like Clarence Thomas replicates the slave masters’ practice of elevating to overseer and other positions of quasi power these slaves willing to mimic the masters’ views, carry out orders, and by their presence provide a perverse legitimacy to the oppression they aided and approved” (Bell, 370). This follows what you mentioned on how it is so important to vote and the presidential power to elect these Supreme Court Justices, who serve life terms, have so much power which can influence the interpretation of our laws and the constitution written by the Framers. What is so crazy to me is how conservative presidents like President Bush put more weight into the perceived conservative ideals of candidates rather than who they are as a person or any allegations they’ve had against them (Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, to name a couple). The most potent line I took from this thought-provoking article was about Clarence Thomas and how he “became a symbol of the crumbling of the judicial nomination process, in which conservatism is more important than professional eminence” (Bell, 372). Overall, this concept of Racial Realism and how this mindset requires Black people to acknowledge that they will never gain full equality in this country is incredibly disheartening and pessimistic. I wonder what everyone’s thoughts on this are and, if this mindset became more widespread, what effects it would have on America’s black population and if it would further the racial divide.
Firstly, let’s address the Racial Preference Licensing Act. Your interpretation of this legislation is both insightful and critical. It’s important to acknowledge the potential benefits of such a system, such as the allocation of funds to support black businesses and educational opportunities. I also have concerns about the potential loopholes and consequences; allowing businesses to openly discriminate, even with financial penalties, raises serious ethical questions about the kind of society we want to live in. Open racism, especially in this sense can erase decades of progress towards racial equality. As Dr. Bell stated’ “victory on such grounds is no victory at all.” (pg. 51)
Moving on to “The Chronicle of the Space Traders,” the narrative serves as a stark reminder of the historical and ongoing exploitation of black people for economic gain. The analogy of black people as players in a rigged game, unable to change the rules but forced to adapt to survive, is both poignant and accurate. The story also prompts reflection on the inherent biases and prejudices within races that holds all of us from progress in the fight against racial injustice. While Golightly was highly regarded in his field and position both in the black community and the presidential cabinet, he was still just a black place holder and speaking vessel for the presidential cabinet and against black reform efforts for the black community.
Finally, for “Racial Realism”. While acknowledging the role of individuals like Thurgood Marshall in challenging injustice, you rightly highlight the pervasive influence of systemic biases within the legal system. The notion of accepting subordination in order to achieve goals is a contentious one, and your rejection of this idea in favor of continued resistance and advocacy for change is commendable. I also feel that Justice Thomas was a major emphasis on black people will allways be subordinate when in competition with the majority.
For additional insight into policy, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) responsible for the refinancing of mortgages created a practice of grading neighborhoods from A to D, which and influenced policies significantly based on racial composition. These grading criteria affected and affects both public policy and private investment, consequently positioning lower graded neighborhoods at the periphery of developmental priorities, with (redlining). This legacy of mapping not only contributed to segregation but is a prime example of systemic biases with lingering socio-economic repercussions leading to further marginalization. While racism isn’t only the overt discrimination of others based on race/skin color but participation in reaping the benefits of the marginalization of others. I see where you’re going with affirmative action and moving the goal post which ties into Gabriel’s note of Bell’s perspective of racial inequality. One thing that I considered with “Racial Realism” is the idea of Black exceptionalism. That individuals wanted to reach positions of seniority have to work 2x as hard and sacrificing their welfare for the sake of greatness.