Oliver and Shapiro~ Connections/Build

First I wanted to say bravo to Andrea and Sye, I found their blog postings both enjoyable to read and very informative.  I have to say that I too agree with the both of you that this article does mainly focus on the past as a reason for uncured wealth of African Americans.  It seems that no matter what advances are made the past is always a huge factor in where we are going.  I also agree that race is not a thing of the past, in fact I think its true if I'm bold enough to say it, that most likely race will never be a thing of the past. We are creatures of habit and what is that saying, History is doomed to repeat itself? As well as with what Andrea said in our denial to accept and deal with our past we will continue to make these same mistakes.  

One thing I wanted to point out to you as well Andrea, is that Wilson is a complete hot air balloon, and Shapiro and Oliver contradict themselves throughout their entire book. They say here that they agree and praise Wilson, yet if you look toward the end of the Shapiro reading in chapter 2 when they are discussing race and class and their relationship to each other they boldly state, "to focus on one as opposed to the other is counterproductive."

The argument for class, most eloquently and influentially stated by William Julius Wilson in his 1978 book The Declining Significance of Race, suggests that the racial barriers of the past are less important than present-day social class attributes in determining the economic life chances of black Americans…Discrimination and racism, while still actively practiced in many spheres, have marginally less effect on black American’s economic attainment than whether or not blacks have the skills and education necessary to fit in a changing economy. In this view, race assumes importance only as the lingering product of an oppressive past. As Wilson observes, this time in his Truly Disadvantaged, racism and its most harmful injuries occurred in the past, and they are today experienced mainly by those on the bottom of the economic latter

Yet in the passage that Wilson most eloquently states, he focuses on class as being more important than issues of race and discrimination.  Shapiro and Oliver also state that both factors are equally responsible for racial inequality. 

The argument of the text is that it "offers a new perspective on racial inequality by exploring how material assets are created, expanded and preserved." 

Something that I found interesting in this text is Shapiro and Oliver mention closing the gap on wealth and the inequality of wages. It reminded me quite a bit of the article that we read a few classes ago which discussed some of the same issues.  I believe it was called the Cost of Inequality. The Cost of inequality discussed a distribution of wealth policy that if successful would distribute the wealth of the top 1%, enough to end world poverty four times over might I add, and level out the unequal debt of the United States.  Shapiro and Oliver briefly mention distributing wealth, but they also discuss the Confederates plan after the Civil war to equally distribute land they took from plantation owners and give it to newly freed African Americans.  The same policy, both nice to dream about, both have never happened. The system stood in the way then more directly in the past, and the system stands in the way now.  

 The Cost of Inequality article also discusses the limited social mobility of those who suffer from inequality. Shapiro and Oliver discuss this issue as well, but the have made the argument solely against race, while the Cost of Inequality uses income and wealth to make its argument.  Race was mentioned but not crucial.  Shapiro makes race crucial, and the disadvantages of  african americans have faced have stemmed over generations of layered accumulation of disadvantages.  Again referring to the past as the main reason of continued disadvantage. I ask the question, if race is so crucial to this argument, what about mixed race individuals? Those who are half white and half black?  (before the civil war called mallato) I wonder where they fall in this continued pattern of disadvantage.  They too were continuously oppressed as never belonging to either racial group, treated in some instances as garbage in other instances pillars of ethnic beauty. I wonder if their place in society has grown, if they have managed to bypass the systems of oppression, like the banks and mortgage companies, where they fit now, pessimistic or optimistic view? That is how Shapiro and Oliver would say it. 

Also in Chapter 1 when Shapiro and Oliver discuss Dividing the Economic Growth, it reminded me of the video we watched, "Capitalism hits the fan."  The professor talks about the economic crisis we have on our hands.  Most of his discussion focuses on the American worker using many of the same statistics and information Shapiro and Oliver use about the stall in the increase of wages. Yet, the professors argument is never limited to race and the opposition of one race over another.  Its merely the numbers of income.  It just makes me wonder if Shapiro and Oliver are putting too much emphasis on race here. I understand where they are coming from many instances of the past have shaped the future, but we are not limited only to that past. African Americans are still continuously oppressed even though we understand and can identify the systems that are at fault.  

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here, I hope I'm not coming off that way.  I thing the argument Shapiro and Oliver make is one sided.  African Americans were oppressed and they still are but this article made me feel depressed like there was never any hope for them and there never will be.  Kind of like they always have been and always will be kind of thing. I try not to think that way I still want to believe in the rags to riches stories.  I have ended up mostly confusing myself.  African Americans were oppressed, they still are, I think racism is for the weak-minded and heartless, and that this article made me hate their depressing findings.