We have been over this on a number of lists so I don't know how much it all
needs to be repeated. Darity, Rhonda Williams, Patrick Mason, Steve Shulman,
Botwinick, et al have argued against the Reich (and Gordon, Edwards, etc.)
position. Herbert Hill and others outside of economics have also made important
contribution. Yes, it does matter how you define "hurt" ("Are white workers hurt
by racism?"). Shulman, e.g., shows that white workers can increase their
bargaining power by forming exclusivist coalitions based on socially constructed
race. Do people need the cites and summaries of these positions again? Most of
this is probably archived somewhere? Yes, this group thinks it is very important
to look at the question of whether whites, men have a real material interest in
racism and patriarchy. It obviously has to inform the anti-racist, anti-sexist,
and class struggles.
-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshie Furuhashi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8592] Is Racism in the Interest of White Workers?
>Gar Lipow wrote:
>
>>There was an article in LBO a while back in an issue I have
>>unfortunately lost. (Maybe Doug can dig it out.) It made some strong
>>statistical arguments that -- in the case if racism anyway -- whites
>>gain more from racism than from a partial reduction in racism.
>
>It's an article by the excellent Heather Boushey, and it's on the
>LBO website <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/Race_curve.html>, along
>with a longer, more formal version of the argument in MS Word
>format, and an archived thread of the discussion of it on this list.
>
>Doug
Heather Boushey writes in "Two Alternate Tests of the Wage Curve:
Does Discrimination Matter?" (1998):
***** These findings show that the unemployment rate of whites and
males has the strongest effect on the earnings of the aggregate
population. The unemployment rate of the groups that are
hypothesized to be in the reserve army of labor does not have a
strong effect on the earnings of the aggregate population. These
findings also point to the conclusion that the labor market is highly
segmented along the lines of gender and race and that there are
different dynamics for these labor markets. Increases in
unemployment for discriminated-against workers lowers all earnings,
but to a lesser extent than the unemployment of non-discriminated
against groups. Thus, in 1994 and all else being equal, individuals
who lived in large urban areas with relatively high unemployment
rates for whites or males experienced lower pay than individuals
living in large urban areas with a relatively high unemployment rate
for African Americans or females. [1]
These findings provide empirical support for the argument that it is
in the interest of whites and males to maintain their employment
privilege because it sustains their higher earnings. When events are
such that even whites or males lose their jobs, all groups suffer in
terms of pay, but when African Americans or women lose their jobs,
pay does not fall for other groups as much.
[1] This makes intuitive sense in that the unemployment of high
earners has, relative to low earners, a more of a negative effect on
average earnings since high earners are a large proportion of the
labor market. *****
I don't think Boushey's findings "provide empirical support for the
argument that it is in the interest of whites and males to maintain
their employment privilege because it sustains their higher
earnings." Why is it in the interest of white & male workers "to
maintain their employment privilege" when the only thing it sustains
is their relatively "higher earnings" than discriminated-against
workers'? Her findings do not suggest that _real earnings_ of white
workers go up _because_ they increase their _relative privilege_
(e.g., they are not among the "last hired, first fired") by making
America _more racist_. In my opinion, _only if_ real earnings of
white workers rise _because_ of racism can it be said that racism is
in the real -- as opposed to perceived -- interest of white workers
(in the empiricist sense).
Moreover, Boushey neglects to compare the earnings -- as well as
other indices of welfare -- of white workers in the area with a
higher degree of racism (the U.S. South) with those in the area with
a lesser degree of racism (the U.S. North).
***** It is not accidental then, that where the Negroes are most
oppressed, the position of the whites is also most degraded. Facts
unearthed and widely publicized, including the Report of the National
Emergency Council to the late President Roosevelt, have thrown vivid
light on the "paradise" of racial bigotry below the Mason-Dixon Line.
They expose the staggering price of "white supremacy" in terms of
health, living and cultural standards of the great masses of southern
whites. They show "white supremacy" -- the shibboleth of Bourbon
overlords -- to be synonymous with the most outrageous poverty and
misery of the southern white people. They show that "keeping the
Negro down" spells for the entire South the nation's lowest wage and
living standards.
"White supremacy" means the nation's greatest proportion of tenants
and sharecroppers, its highest rate of child labor, its most
degrading and widespread exploitation of women, its poorest health
and housing record, its highest illiteracy and lowest proportion of
students in high schools and colleges, its highest death and disease
rates, its lowest level of union organization and its least
democracy....
Nearly 45 per cent of sharecroppers were white in 1940....
Wages in 1938 were anywhere from 30 to 50 per cent below those of the
rest of the country. In 1940 the per capita income of the southeast
was only $309. Compare this with a national per capita income of
$573. Containing 14 per cent of the nation's population, the region
received only 7.3 per cent of the nation's wage total....
Political controls which are aimed primarily at the
disenfranchisement of the Negro have also resulted in depriving the
mass of the poor whites of their right to the ballot. In 1942,
6,000,000 southern whites were disenfranchised as compared to
4,000,000 Negroes.
Lynching, a device of the Bourbon ruling classes designed to keep the
Negro in "his place," is turned against the white worker whenever he
attempts to improve his conditions or to join forces with the Negro
in the struggle for his rights....
In fact, every measure passed to curb the Negro has resulted in
destroying the civil rights of the poor whites. At the bottom of the
cultural backwardness and impoverishment of the southern white is the
position of his black neighbor. America's Tobacco Road begins in the
Black Belt....
Plainly the South can progress only by breaking the oppression of the
Negro. "A people which enslaves another people forges its own
chains," said Karl Marx. The same idea was expressed in colloquial
language by Booker T. Washington: You can't hold the Negro in the
ditch without staying in it with him. (Harry Haywood, "Shadow of
the Plantation [from _Negro Liberation_] (1948)," _Black on White:
Black Writers on What It Means to Be White_, ed. David R. Roediger,
NY: Schocken Books, 1998) *****
I believe it is still very much true -- even after the end of Jim
Crow -- that white workers in the U.S. North are much better off than
their counterparts in the Southern "Right-to-Work" states. I'd like
to see if anyone has newer studies that compare them.
Moreover, racism (which compounds sexism) has been one of the main
reasons why it has been so difficult to create, sustain, & improve
the social programs & insurances (e.g., universal health care,
unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, old age pension, paid
parental leaves, paid vacation, day care, decent public schooling,
free tuition for post-secondary education, etc.) that lower the "cost
of job loss," which Boushey, too, says plays "an important role in
the determination of wages," and/or directly improve the welfare of
the proletariat.
In short, I repeat my argument that racism makes white workers -- as
well as workers of color -- "losers." Therefore, racism is not in
the interest of white workers.
Yoshie
P.S. The above discussion originated in LBO-talk; I'm posting it
here because I'm interested in what Progressive Economists have to
say about the subject.
