I want to end with a quote from Michael Lewis out of his controversial book entitled, The Culture of Inequality. On page 8 Lewis gets at the heart of how abstract liberalism (though he doesn’t call it this) is maintained in the minds of those who ascribe to colorblindness. He asserts:
“The emergence of this individualistic moral sensibility is of considerable significance, for as we shall see it has become central to the existence of the American culture of inequality—an interpretation of unequal outcomes given the assumption of equal chances. It is a sensibility that virtually ignores the impact of social structure upon personal achievement and mobility. According to this sensibility, it is the individual alone who is socially significant, who determines what his or her contribution to the commonweal will be, and who is therefore responsible for the degree of personal success achieved. Society is seen as benign, offering up opportunities and waiting to be enriched…therefore removes inequality of personal perquisites from the category of social conditions in need of reform. If inequality exists, it is nothing more than a reflection of different personal qualities”. (pg. 
Reflection Two…
Were the ways that you were taught about your history such that fit and/or conflicted with the standard versions?
I was especially intrigued by the last section of the DVD, “Race: The Power of An Illusion”. In other readings, I’ve run across the name of one of the sociologists who spoke in the film, Melvin Oliver. He wrote a book with another person with the last name of Shapiro. If I remember correctly, Shapiro is an economist. This book dealt with the same subject that Oliver dealt with in the film, the relationship between race and housing. I can’t remember the name of the article that had him as a source, but I remember the essence of the quote. He and the co-author estimated that it would take something like 300 years in order to equal out the economic playing field between Blacks and Whites. I never forgot that.
I mention this because of the implications that accumulated and passed down assets have had (and still have) in American life. That part of history was left out of my traditional, public educational version of history. On the contrary, my parents have mentioned a bit of this. Just about two weeks ago, my father and I were conversing about his childhood over a basketball game. He spoke of how he was born into a sharecropping scenario. My mother, who is from the same town as my father, was also born into this type of scenario. Opposed to the standard version about sharecropping I received in high school, which focused on the “legal” aspects of what was supposed to happen, my father exposed me to the real deal.
Legally, sharecropping was supposed to be a situation that provided both signing parties a fruitful ending. It should’ve been a situation where a farmer fronted land and farming materials to a person or family that more often lived on the farmer’s land; housing was most often paid at the end of the year, the same time that the two signing parties “Evened up” from crop sales and fronted materials. Both parties were supposed to evaluate how much was fronted versus how much was made by the sharecroppers. The family that was fronted was supposed to have this great opportunity to “better” themselves and get off the ground; in fact, at some point, this family would likely have their own farm. This concept almost reminds me of banks and other creditors that front poor people money knowing that they likely will never get out of debt.
Anyways, what was left out of the standard version of history and that which my father filled me in on was how this actually played out in reality. Many sharecroppers had little to no education. It was thus next to impossible for them to adequately keep track of all their expenses. But regardless of this, the farmers always had the final say on how much was truly borrowed and how much was truly owed. This was enforced by intimidation if necessary. Lynching didn’t only happen when a Black man was caught having had sex with a White woman. Seldom did sharecroppers make anything after the tallying was complete; in most cases, they ended up owing money. Both situations kept them working for the boss and perpetually being in debt. This has far reaching consequences when we consider assessing accumulated assets and wealth.
Since my parents were born into debt, they started life with a serious disadvantage. Tim Wise speaks on accumulated wealth or debt in the first chapter of his excellent book titled, White Like Me. The disadvantage my parents received was passed on to me. People born into this world are born into accumulated assets or accumulated debts. Such is life. One of the problems with this is that in our country Euro-Americans were given such a head start in the “legal” form of housing acts (for instance) it now will take a really long time (if ever) to be rectified. Without programs like affirmative action, these legal privileges may never be resolved.
