Latest posts by Team RYSE (see all)
- Isn’t It Time We Were Honest About Valentines Day?
Self-Described "Failure Experts" Help Singles & Couples Redefine "Relationship Goals"- February 20, 2017
- Editorial: ABC’s “The Bachelor” Casts The First Black Bachelorette
Is Rachel Lindsay a Blessing and a Curse?- February 16, 2017
- Not Your Average Sixteen Bars
Solidifying Southern Hip-Hop’s Footprint- February 9, 2017
Marcus H. Johnson
Freelance Writer and Political Scientist
Let’s do a thought experiment. I want you to imagine that there is a Black mayoral candidate running in Detroit, one of the Blackest cities in the United States. Let’s imagine that the Black mayoral candidate — let’s call him Jamal Brown — has no government experience whatsoever, but has a bombastic, braggadocious personality and billions of dollars in real estate wealth.
Mr. Brown claims that Detroit’s decline in economic might and political stature is due to white people who are coming into the city and “taking jobs” from hard working Black Detroitians.
Mr. Brown alleges that Indiana and Wisconsin are sending in white criminals and rapists, and that the city of Detroit should build a wall to keep these white people out. Mr. Brown was sued by the federal government in the past for refusing to rent to white people, has declared bankruptcy several times, has been accused of sexually assaulting over a dozen women, and questioned whether or not George W. Bush was an American citizen.
Mr. Brown has ties to Black separatist groups that he refuses to condemn, and in fact encourages violence against white protestors at his rallies.
Let’s be honest here. Would Jamal Brown win the Detroit mayoral race? No.
Would Mr. Brown get support from law enforcement, intelligence agencies, or military generals? No.
Would our fictitious character get the support media apologists who claim that he is simply channeling the anger of Black “economic anxiety?” No, of course not. He wouldn’t get hundreds of millions in small donations either.
Our fictitious character is obviously a direct analogy to Donald Trump. The comparison is made to show what I like to call the racial empathy gap.
The media has pushed a narrative that a large number of Americans have simply come to accept: that Donald Trump’s supporters aren’t racist, they are simply worried about the economy, and this pushes them to words and actions that might “appear” racist, but in reality are not.
I wholeheartedly reject the “economic anxiety” narrative, not only because Clinton won voters in every rust belt state whose number one issue was the economy, but also because the economic anxiety narrative itself is a prime example of white privilege (and thus the racial empathy gap).
According to a Pew Research piece published in 2014, the white median net worth for a family stood at $141,000. The median net worth for a Black family stood at $11,000, and the same number for a Latino family was $13,000.
That means the median white family had 13 times the net worth of a comparable Black family! Despite this massive racial wealth gap, economic anxiety was frequently employed as a catch all excuse for aggrieved over the past 18 months.
Economic anxiety is virtually never used as an excuse for Black people. There’s a reason for that.
The Crack Epidemic Vs. The Heroin Epidemic
If you want to examine how the white working class receives empathy that is never reserved for the Black working class, look no further than the heroin epidemic.
Now admittedly, the heroin epidemic is a terrible health crisis that requires bipartisan solutions. But when crack cocaine disproportionately affected Black communities in the 1980s, there was no call for a public health solution. In fact, the crack epidemic was not considered a public health problem at all, instead, it was considered a criminal justice issue.
Crack cocaine users in the Black community were not given clean needles or anti-overdose drugs. They were arrested, given records, and mandatory minimums. Politicians did not call for compassion and sympathy for poor Black people caught up in drugs in the 1980s.
They called for harsh criminal penalties. Just look at the 100–1 mandatory sentencing ratio between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. The law was consciously designed to more harshly impact Black people, who were more likely to use crack cocaine versus the powdered version of the drug. Millions of Black people were got records, were locked up, lost their voting rights, and were later unable to reenter the economy or get a job due to harsh state and local laws passed in the 1980s. Those poor Black people…
This article originally appeared on Medium.com