Mr. Roscoe, thank you for your thoughts. Two clarifying questions for you:
1. One way to deracialize people is to use different language. Let's say the U.S. Census started capturing data on how people are identified/racialized by others. Let's then say the charts on wealth you provide above reflected these shifts: they had all the same data but in the legend said "racialized black" instead of "black" and "racialized white" instead of "white." Ditto for the charts on 4th grade reading scores you provide in your piece on affirmative action, and so on. I contend that this change of terminology does not diminish a confrontation with brutal facts. Would you agree?
2. Let's say we paid attention to all of the important charts you provide AND, per Greg Thomas, also look at charts showing progress over time, e.g. the massive increase in the black-identified middle class in the past several decades. No need to stop looking at the bad news when we look at some good news. What objection would you make to this?
Thanks for your questions. Here are a couple of responses:
1. A rose by any other name smells the same. What would be accomplished by the approach you suggest? Would it lead to a reduction in racial discrepancies? Would people who think they're victims of discrimination feel better about their situations if they thought of themselves as "racialized black" or "racialized white?" I'm skeptical.
2, Progress towards closing racial disparities stalled out many years ago. Derek Neal's paper suggests that what he called the "skills convergence" ended during the late 1980's. The academic achievement gap and the college readiness gap, for example, have persisted for decades.
The wealth gap hasn't improved much over the years according to the St. Louis Fed:
One of their charts shows that 82% of black families had less wealth than the typical white family in 2019 compared to 86% in 1989. Ellora Derenoncourt of Princeton and others have done work that shows the same pattern ("WEALTH OF TWO NATIONS: THE U.S. RACIAL WEALTH GAP, 1860-2020"). Use this link to access the paper:
The racial wealth gap is the largest and most persistent of the economic disparities between Black and white Americans—with a white-to-Black per capita wealth ratio of 6 to 1. This wealth gap has evolved in a “hockey-stick” pattern, from a starting point of nearly 60 to 1 at the eve of the Civil War, to a ratio of 10 to 1 by 1920, and to7 to 1 during the 1950s, where it has hovered ever since. These figures come from our new data set on white-to-Black per capita wealth ratios, the first continuous time series on the racial wealth gap covering the last 160 years. We constructed this database through the use of historical census data, early state tax records, national reports, annual studies on Black economic progress, and historical and modern waves of national surveys.
We find that the most dramatic episode of racial wealth convergence occurred in the first 50 years after Emancipation (during the Reconstruction Era), but that this initial rapid convergence gave away to much slower declines in the wealth gap during the 20thcentury. Since the 1980s, we even document a re-divergence in the racial wealth gap, instead of further convergence, which can be explained by a widening of the racial gap in capital gains.
A 2018 analysis from Zillow showed that the black-white homeownership gap was wider then (30 percentage points) than it was in 1900 (27 percentage points):
Median black household income was about 58% of that for whites in 1989 vs, 62% in 2021 (Use the link below, download the report, and look at the numbers in Table A-2 if you want to do a deep dive.
At least half of Black America has experienced minimal progress when it comes to closing the academic achievement gap. the income gap, the wealth gap, the homeownership gap, etc. What would you say to them?
The dilemma for older blacks and for black leaders is that they don't have a good explanation for the lack of progress since the late 1980's. They don't want to acknowledge their failures so they say racism is the primary cause. That claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny, but the bias narrative resonates with a lot of people.
I could be wrong, but my sense is that people can know that things aren't going well but aren't sure what to do about it. Many of them know that the bias narrative is baloney, but they haven't heard a clear and fleshed out version of the development narrative. Folks are ready for the "brutal facts" as long as they're accompanied by a clear vision and a realistic plan of action.
1. Some roses have lost their scent. Others have died.
Still, you ask a good question: "What would be accomplished by...?" If the answer is nothing, as you appear to assume, then I agree: why bother? Greg has made a strong case for the social and economic ills caused by racializing people. My hunch is you don't share his view of these. Nor do you see any benefit to deracializing people. I've written at length on this issue (an ebook called How To Be An Anti-race Antiracist, a deliberate play on Kendi, whom I have separately critiqued) but here's a quick and partial response:
a. Want people to stop complaining and start developing themselves...to shift from a victim mentality to a hero's journey or developmental approach? This requires a growth mindset. Believing you are a member of a race with fixed attributes doesn't help. So, in response to your question about people "feeling better", I would say: maybe better, but more likely they'd have new capacities, i.e. this is not just about "feeling."
What's behind me saying this: I'm an executive coach who has worked with senior leaders in Fortune 100 companies for 20 years. My speciality is helping people shift their narratives and take new actions. Loads of research around this...
b. We don't know what will happen until we try, but why give up on innovation before you start?
When 3M introduced post-it notes, did they imagine all the ways people would use them? Nope. When Honda was trying to introduce its motorcycles into the U.S. market, did it realize that customers in the L.A. area would chose to request the smaller motorcycles driven by Honda salespeople rather than the larger ones that Honda was deliberately trying to sell Americans? Not at all. (Henry Mintzberg, the great Canadian management thinker, has written about this).
As Americans, does our interest in inventing and innovating only apply to the for-profit sector? Do we act as though these capacities are useless in the area of social policy and shifting social habits? Gosh, I would hope not.
2. I admire and agree with your data but I don't think you've answered my basic question: what's wrong with presenting data showing progress of black-identified Americans IN ADDITION TO all the data around the disparities?
- I have zero arguments with your data about the racial wealth gap. I remember hearing Mel Oliver speak 25 years ago about his book Black Wealth, White Wealth and was sold on the importance of tracking wealth over income. This is a massive social, economic and political challenge. I'm with you all the way on this..
AND...
- All of the data you provide is a comparison of "black" and "whites." Why no data showing a comparison of black-identified Americans today versus, say, 1970 or 1950 WITHOUT comparing to "whites?" Why do all of the statistics you provide need to be a comparison between groups? With GDP, sure economists compare the U.S. to other countries, but they put as much attention on changing in U.S. GDP over time without comparing to other countries. Ditto for many other socioeconomic measures—why not do that here? Has there been no progress in the material conditions of black-identified Americans in the U.S.?
Ironically, the extreme progressive postmodernists would agree. Reading their writing I almost get the sense not only has there been no progress since the 1950s but life isn't much better than during slavery. It's a remarkable way of creating a narrative that denies the truth of hard-earned gains.
In my line of work, we focus on bad news AND good news. Disaster and dignity. This is essential to getting people to shift their social habits, how they spend their time, what choices they make, etc. I'm curious what keeps you from being willing to do this on this topic.
1. I'm all for deracializing America. Greg Thomas and I disagree about how far we should go with this and what steps are required to reach whatever level of racialization is appropriate. I covered this is my first response. Here's an excerpt:
We all seem to agree that today's highly racialized environment is bad, but I didn't get a clear sense of what his deracialized replacement looks like. Does he want the government to stop collecting racial data? Should we stop worrying about noticeable differences across the races (e.g., academic achievement gap, income gap, employment gap, wealth gap, life expectancy gap, differences in poverty rates, differences in incarceration rates, differences in criminal victimization rates, etc.)? What about differences relating to gender, age, sexual orientation, and other noticeable differences between easily identified groups of Americans? Should we stop worrying about them too? Should we abandon the concept of hate crimes? A lot of people would be relieved if these things happened, but we might not be a better country if we ignored these issues.
Last but not least, I didn't get a clear sense of what Greg Thomas thinks “blackness” should be. Can it be reduced to just culture? Does he think we should give up most black institutions since many of them perceive their missions to include more than just preserving black culture?
I say in a subsequent post that we need to debunk the bias narrative and show that the development narrative offers a path towards black progress. I think that's consistent with your "hero's journey" approach and having a "growth mindset" but feel free to provide more feedback.
2. Experience has taught me that language needs to be clear, concise, and unambiguous if you want to effectively communicate with with large groups of people.
You asked, "...what's wrong with presenting data showing progress of black-identified Americans IN ADDITION TO all the data around the disparities?" That approach allows people to avoid "confronting the brutal facts." It mutes the sense of purpose and urgency ("Things are OK. What's the rush?") needed to effect real and sustained change at scale.
It's fair to point out that things aren't as bad as they were in 1950, but the relative stagnation since the late 1980's is inescapable. Marc Morial of the National Urban League often refers to Black America as the caboose at the end of America's economic train. Black folks go faster or slower depending upon the speed of the train, but their relative position never changes:
The data I presented backs up that assertion. Equally important, progress in absolute terms has spotty at best. The Zillow report I referenced showed that black homeownership rates were lower in 2018 than they were in the mid 1980's. Real (inflation- adjusted) median household income for blacks was lower in 2017 than it was during the late 1990's:
Whites, Hispanics, and Asians, by contrast, all made progress during this period. To be fair, that period included two recessions, most notably "The Great Recession" of 2007-08, but those groups still had higher incomes during that period.
The stagnation I'm describing shows up in lots of ways. You can get a feel for it if you follow what's happening in black neighborhoods in cities around the country. They lack vibrancy and often look and feel run down. The black pessimism that Pew's data shows reflects this stagnation, as does the exodus of black people from places like Baltimore, Chicago, and New York.
I understand that some people look for signs of hope, but as friends of mine like to say, "Hope isn't a strategy." That's especially true when you're trying to make big changes at scale. You have to be clear-eyed and persistent.
Thanks for these good comments. I think I have a better understand of where you are coming from.
1. Maybe I didn't read your original post closely enough but your comment here ("I'm all for deracializing America") is the first time I recall your advocating for deracialization. It's good to see this say this directly. When you previously said that "today's racialized environment is bad" I didn't interpret that as making a case for deracialization. Thanks for the correction.
The rest of the excerpt from your first response I already addressed in my most recent #2, so I'll leave that be for now.
What does Greg mean by "blackness"? I'd add to that: what does anyone mean when they say "black." The terms indeed means different things to different people. Good topic for another thread.
2. I now see much more clearly why you want to keep your message and data focused on the disparities between "black" and "white" and the lack of progress recently in such disparities. For you, showing absolute figures of progress among black-identified Americans dilutes your message. It distracts people from understand how bad the disparities are. And the key to persuading people to act is to highlight the depth of the disparity. I suppose we might call this one theory of persuasion.
I have a different theory of persuasion as, I think, does Greg. My theory is that if you present both good news and bad news, the combination gives people enough of a nudge to take action yet without pushing them into moods of pessimism and resignation. You don't lose urgency. You take urgency and add a sense of momentum.
Greg makes a great case for stories and data that support a heroic narrative, one that doesn't ignore the brutal facts but shows people rising beyond them. He also makes a strong case that if you want the American people to invest in anything, you need to show the value of what they are investing in. What do you think of this "investment" form of persuasion? Once you accept that it has validity, then it becomes hard to devote 100% of your time/attention/charts to showing how bad a particular group is doing. People want to invest in positive assets. There is a story of black-identified Americans improving their value as assets to America. Why can't we tell this story?
Again, if you have a different theory of persuasion, then what I've just written makes no sense. I get it.
Also: which stories and which data we present depends on the audience. Basic segmentation. There are some audience for whom the full bad news produces positive action. There are some audiences for which the full bad news produces complete inaction. That's why a broad repertoire of narratives and data provides for a more nimble approach in a complex world.
Thank you for taking up my invitation to discuss data just for black-identified Americans over time. Based on the data you selected (home ownership and median household income) and the years you selected (mid 80s to 2017ish), the story is negative. Are there literally no positive trends for black-identified Americans during those time periods?
Perhaps as importantly, comparisons to the 80s make sense if your goal is to assess progress in the past 30 years, particularly if you want proof of a bad news story. But what if your goal, for the reasons I've outlined, is to show real progress. I'm sure you can find other periods (1958 to 2018?) for which it is an enormously important story. What makes these numbers less valid? Again, if your theory of persuasion is to only show the bad news, then you wouldn't tell this story. But if you wanted to tell this story, you could, and the data would be just as valid. More importantly, from my perspective, it would have the effect of demonstrating the increase in value of the asset known as black-identified Americans. And counteract the widely shared extreme progressive narrative that nothing really has changed and nothing will ever get better.
As for "Hope isn't a strategy," I agree. Yet that's not what we're talking about here. Positive narratives grounded in story and data aren't just about some vague thing called "hope". There is all sorts of data from the fields of positive psychology, positive organizational studies, and applied neuroscience that provide a direct link between the narratives people holds in their minds and the actions they take. If you want to reverse "pessimism" and "stagnation" telling people that their lives suck doesn't do it. Helping them learn their capacities, build new ones, and create a new narrative for their lives helps. I imagine that providing data and charts would help you understand this argument. Perhaps that's a topic for another thread.
Thanks for your comments. The timeline leading up to the symposium is long and includes thousands of words. I understand why you would think I don't want to deracialize. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't think that can happen, however, as long as large racial disparities exist and the bias narrative holds sway.
Discussions about what constitutes "blackness" and whether it needs to be redefined have been had on previous episodes of The Glenn Show, including the one that featured Greg Thomas and John McWhorter.
Being "black" is very or extremely important to 76% of Black Americans according to a survey that Pew Research did last April:
Greg didn't define his deracialized version of "blackness" when he appeared on The Glenn Show and it's still not clear to me what that entails. As you said, that's another topic for another thread, but it's clear that the bias narrative is an integral component of "blackness" for much of Black America. The other Pew analysis I referenced shows that a large percentage of black people don't think they can achieve equality with their peers because of various forms of racism.
We seem to disagree when it comes to the best way to spur people to action. I've been around long enough to know mixing good news with bad news rarely yield good results when dealing with large groups of people. There has to be a sense of urgency in order to get people to make fundamental changes. That's what's required to reduce the disparities I've highlighted.
You have to give people clear and convincing reasons if you want them to make significant changes. The message for me is simple:
1. Racism is not a major impediment to black progress. The stagnation will continue as long as the bias narrative holds sway.
2. Black people can achieve their version of the "American Dream" if they're prepared to make fundamental changes. We see examples of this all around us, especially with black immigrants.
The simpler the message, the better. Roger Ferguson's three steps for closing the racial wealth gap, for example, are logical and easily understood. This excerpt from one of Greg Thomas' posts, by contrast, rang hollow for me:
For example, from a racialized perspective, there’s a wealth gap of $164,100 between “whites” and “blacks” in a recent Federal Reserve survey. Yet, as Ian Rowe details in his excellent work Agency:
According to the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, the median net worth of a two-parent, college-educated black family is $219,600. For a white, single-parent household, the median net worth is $60,730,” a differential of $158,870 in favor of such “blacks.”
Who compares the wealth of single parent white households with that of black married couple households? Is this meaningless "apples to oranges" comparison supposed to be good news or something that's useful if we want to close the wealth gap? All things being equal, black wealth lags white wealth across the entire distribution. That's what's important and that's the issue that needs to be addressed.
You mentioned taking a longer term perspective when talking about black progress. Maybe I didn't make this point strongly enough, but half of Black America is 32 or younger. I won't go so far as to say young people don't care about what happened 60-70 years ago, but they've only experienced stagnation. It's important to talk to them about things they've seen firsthand and to offer them a path towards a better life for them and their children.
"Who compares the wealth of single parent white households with that of black married couple households? Is this meaningless "apples to oranges" comparison supposed to be good news or something that's useful if we want to close the wealth gap?"
Ian Rowe in his book, Agency" that's who. His point, as is mine, is that the factors determining disparate statistical results MUST INCLUDE VARIABLES ASIDE FROM RACE!!
It is not true that the half of Black America 32 or younger have "only experienced stagnation," Clifton. Human beings are not stick figures in statistical measures based on the fallacious idea of race. I believe in clarity and precision in language too. So why not say SOME young people identified as black have experienced stagnation?
Have the children of the 340,000 black-identified millionaires only experienced stagnation?
I don't mean to imply that children of wealthy parents don't have problems, goodness no. But, for goodness sake, why can't you grok that from a business and investment perspective, there must be assets of some kind, tangible to intangible, to draw upon to raise angel or venture capital?
Your narrative of lack and limitation, I daresay, lends itself more to the bias narrative than the development narrative. The bias narrative is focused on how historical discrimination and so-called systemic racism is the reason we see disparities. The bias narrative is more focused on external obstacles over internal communal and cultural resources, whether expressed by individuals or the group. The development narrative points to the need for Afro-Americans to develop the skills, habits, and mindsets that will allow us to improve ourselves internally, within the group, to ameliorate the disparities and problems that still beset us.
By painting an exclusive picture of lack and limitation, you provide fuel for those who center on the bias narrative. They will point to the same statistics you do, but will look at external causes as the basis. My perspective, which transcends the bias narrative while including the reality that we as a group, and as a society, have far to go, paints a picture of our actual historical and cultural achievements as a people, and supports thereby a development narrative. One develops based on foundations. Our achievements is one such foundation.
Although personal, individual accounts aren't "statistically significant," they still can serve as representative anecdotes with larger implications. Take my daughter, for instance, now 27 years old. She is in the cohort of 32-and under that comprises 50% of the group. She grew up in an environment of working to middle-class people; within the family, it was primarily Afro-American in ethnic and cultural terms, at school, it was a diverse mixture of students from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds on Staten Island.
Her mother and I divorced when she was very young; her mother and I both remarried, so according to "statistical measures," she grew up in a "broken home." NO. She had a birth mother and a stepmother, a biological father and a stepfather--we all loved and love her and supported her growth and development. As a pre-teen, she stayed with me on weekends, and I would take her to Barnes & Nobles regularly for her to be around books and literature. She was surrounded by books and music and art at home too. She studied at the Harlem School of the Arts when I lived in Harlem.
How did she fare? Well, she was deeply disappointed when she wasn't accepted to any of the NYC specialized schools. But God works in mysterious ways. My former wife, her mom, and I agreed that she should come live with me and my wife in New Rochelle, NY, and attend the very good public high school there, rather than the lackluster high school she was zoned for in Staten Island.
She blossomed academically and otherwise, coming into her own as a young lady. And when she applied to college, she did so via early admission at Dartmouth . . . and was accepted! She continued to blossom there, majoring in computer science. In her junior year, she was selected as one of the top ten college women of the year by Vogue magazine, and was also one of three Afro-American young ladies honored by Michelle Obama on the Black Girls Rock television program.
After graduation, for several years she worked as a computer engineer in Silicon Valley. Two years ago, she applied for graduate school. She was accepted, and is currently in her last semester in a joint MBA-Engineering program at MIT.
Does my daughter's story not matter because it's relatively rare, indeed exceptional for a young person of ANY background? Cannot her story of Afro-American success despite the odds inspire others? This is an example why stories of actual success and achievement are crucial: they can inspire others who can themselves see what's possible, and can build their own aspirations for growth and development.
Here's a quote from my mentor Albert Murray on why such asset-framing is essential:
“Sometimes Americans are disposed to fair play and sometimes they are not. But they almost always invest their time, money, and enthusiasm in assets with promise, not liabilities. Even those who become involved in salvage operations have been sold on inherent potential.”
You ask about my deracialized version of blackness. Simple: it acknowledges that we are a people, an ethnic group, with a powerful culture, who have made strides in spite of almost insurmountable odds, and have contributed greatly to America's culture and conception of freedom. I don't use the term "blackness" per se because it is too akin to a persistent belief in race and racialization. We are a people, nonetheless, as I've said, with an ethnic and cultural identity. It is not necessary to hold onto the idea of race, the practice of racialization, and the mindset of a racial worldview, to have a personal and ethno-cultural group identity.
I'm just trying to get more people to realize and accept that reality, but racecraft keeps getting in the way. But there are a growing group of persons, for instance, Amiel Handelsman, who see the light at the end of the tunnel, and rather than making excuses for why the time isn't right to deracialize, shows the courage to do so NOW.
Thank you for these perspectives. I appreciate all the experience, wisdom, and data you bring. And it's healthy that we can name where we disagree, notably about the best sequence to take between deracialization and reducing disparities.
Per my prior comment, I trust you share my view that different audiences require different messages. Toward that end, I agree with you that if the audience is 25 year old black-identified Americans, comparing today's economic/educational numbers to the 1950s rings hollow. We agree there must be better messages than this. Yours might be data on disparities. I might focus my message for this group on deracialization for the sake of cultivating growth mindsets, getting out of a feeling of being stuck, and taking positive paths forward.
As for the data of 1950s versus today, that would be more valuable for the audience of anyone making decisions about where to invest public and private resources, e.g. public officials, foundations, corporate leaders, etc.—so they recognize the valuable asset they are investing in instead of continuing to see black-identified as liabilities on the balance sheet. I cannot tell you how many liberals, progressives, moderates and conservatives in my acquaintance speak about black-identified Americans (often with compassion, sometimes pity, sometimes apathy) as a problem to solve, as something to feel guilty about, etc (depending on the person), rather than as an asset to invest in. It's endemic.
In case I didn't make it clear, I am 100% behind your emphasis on shifting the public dialogue from purely income measures to also wealth measures. Oliver and Shapiro's book "Black Wealth, White Wealth" convinced me of this 25 years ago, and nothing since then has changed my thinking. Being in conversation together about how to increase the wealth of black-identified Americans—that's a conversation worth being in. We may differ on how to get there, but share a commitment to the goal.
Mr. Roscoe, thank you for your thoughts. Two clarifying questions for you:
1. One way to deracialize people is to use different language. Let's say the U.S. Census started capturing data on how people are identified/racialized by others. Let's then say the charts on wealth you provide above reflected these shifts: they had all the same data but in the legend said "racialized black" instead of "black" and "racialized white" instead of "white." Ditto for the charts on 4th grade reading scores you provide in your piece on affirmative action, and so on. I contend that this change of terminology does not diminish a confrontation with brutal facts. Would you agree?
2. Let's say we paid attention to all of the important charts you provide AND, per Greg Thomas, also look at charts showing progress over time, e.g. the massive increase in the black-identified middle class in the past several decades. No need to stop looking at the bad news when we look at some good news. What objection would you make to this?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for your questions. Here are a couple of responses:
1. A rose by any other name smells the same. What would be accomplished by the approach you suggest? Would it lead to a reduction in racial discrepancies? Would people who think they're victims of discrimination feel better about their situations if they thought of themselves as "racialized black" or "racialized white?" I'm skeptical.
2, Progress towards closing racial disparities stalled out many years ago. Derek Neal's paper suggests that what he called the "skills convergence" ended during the late 1980's. The academic achievement gap and the college readiness gap, for example, have persisted for decades.
The wealth gap hasn't improved much over the years according to the St. Louis Fed:
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2020/december/has-wealth-inequality-changed-over-time-key-statistics
One of their charts shows that 82% of black families had less wealth than the typical white family in 2019 compared to 86% in 1989. Ellora Derenoncourt of Princeton and others have done work that shows the same pattern ("WEALTH OF TWO NATIONS: THE U.S. RACIAL WEALTH GAP, 1860-2020"). Use this link to access the paper:
https://www.elloraderenoncourt.com/research
Use this link to access a non-technical summary:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wmefnmslupdav23/DKKS_2022_Research_Brief.pdf?dl=0
Here are the opening paragraphs:
The racial wealth gap is the largest and most persistent of the economic disparities between Black and white Americans—with a white-to-Black per capita wealth ratio of 6 to 1. This wealth gap has evolved in a “hockey-stick” pattern, from a starting point of nearly 60 to 1 at the eve of the Civil War, to a ratio of 10 to 1 by 1920, and to7 to 1 during the 1950s, where it has hovered ever since. These figures come from our new data set on white-to-Black per capita wealth ratios, the first continuous time series on the racial wealth gap covering the last 160 years. We constructed this database through the use of historical census data, early state tax records, national reports, annual studies on Black economic progress, and historical and modern waves of national surveys.
We find that the most dramatic episode of racial wealth convergence occurred in the first 50 years after Emancipation (during the Reconstruction Era), but that this initial rapid convergence gave away to much slower declines in the wealth gap during the 20thcentury. Since the 1980s, we even document a re-divergence in the racial wealth gap, instead of further convergence, which can be explained by a widening of the racial gap in capital gains.
A 2018 analysis from Zillow showed that the black-white homeownership gap was wider then (30 percentage points) than it was in 1900 (27 percentage points):
https://www.zillow.com/research/homeownership-gap-widens-19384/
The gap was about 30 percentage points as of Q4 of 2022 according to the US Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/current/index.html
The gap in median household incomes hasn't closed much over the years either according to the US Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html
Median black household income was about 58% of that for whites in 1989 vs, 62% in 2021 (Use the link below, download the report, and look at the numbers in Table A-2 if you want to do a deep dive.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/demo/p60-276.html
The median age for blacks in America was 32 as of 2019 according to Pew Research:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/fact-sheet/facts-about-the-us-black-population/
At least half of Black America has experienced minimal progress when it comes to closing the academic achievement gap. the income gap, the wealth gap, the homeownership gap, etc. What would you say to them?
The dilemma for older blacks and for black leaders is that they don't have a good explanation for the lack of progress since the late 1980's. They don't want to acknowledge their failures so they say racism is the primary cause. That claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny, but the bias narrative resonates with a lot of people.
I could be wrong, but my sense is that people can know that things aren't going well but aren't sure what to do about it. Many of them know that the bias narrative is baloney, but they haven't heard a clear and fleshed out version of the development narrative. Folks are ready for the "brutal facts" as long as they're accompanied by a clear vision and a realistic plan of action.
Mr. Roscoe,
Thanks for your response.
1. Some roses have lost their scent. Others have died.
Still, you ask a good question: "What would be accomplished by...?" If the answer is nothing, as you appear to assume, then I agree: why bother? Greg has made a strong case for the social and economic ills caused by racializing people. My hunch is you don't share his view of these. Nor do you see any benefit to deracializing people. I've written at length on this issue (an ebook called How To Be An Anti-race Antiracist, a deliberate play on Kendi, whom I have separately critiqued) but here's a quick and partial response:
a. Want people to stop complaining and start developing themselves...to shift from a victim mentality to a hero's journey or developmental approach? This requires a growth mindset. Believing you are a member of a race with fixed attributes doesn't help. So, in response to your question about people "feeling better", I would say: maybe better, but more likely they'd have new capacities, i.e. this is not just about "feeling."
What's behind me saying this: I'm an executive coach who has worked with senior leaders in Fortune 100 companies for 20 years. My speciality is helping people shift their narratives and take new actions. Loads of research around this...
b. We don't know what will happen until we try, but why give up on innovation before you start?
When 3M introduced post-it notes, did they imagine all the ways people would use them? Nope. When Honda was trying to introduce its motorcycles into the U.S. market, did it realize that customers in the L.A. area would chose to request the smaller motorcycles driven by Honda salespeople rather than the larger ones that Honda was deliberately trying to sell Americans? Not at all. (Henry Mintzberg, the great Canadian management thinker, has written about this).
As Americans, does our interest in inventing and innovating only apply to the for-profit sector? Do we act as though these capacities are useless in the area of social policy and shifting social habits? Gosh, I would hope not.
2. I admire and agree with your data but I don't think you've answered my basic question: what's wrong with presenting data showing progress of black-identified Americans IN ADDITION TO all the data around the disparities?
- I have zero arguments with your data about the racial wealth gap. I remember hearing Mel Oliver speak 25 years ago about his book Black Wealth, White Wealth and was sold on the importance of tracking wealth over income. This is a massive social, economic and political challenge. I'm with you all the way on this..
AND...
- All of the data you provide is a comparison of "black" and "whites." Why no data showing a comparison of black-identified Americans today versus, say, 1970 or 1950 WITHOUT comparing to "whites?" Why do all of the statistics you provide need to be a comparison between groups? With GDP, sure economists compare the U.S. to other countries, but they put as much attention on changing in U.S. GDP over time without comparing to other countries. Ditto for many other socioeconomic measures—why not do that here? Has there been no progress in the material conditions of black-identified Americans in the U.S.?
Ironically, the extreme progressive postmodernists would agree. Reading their writing I almost get the sense not only has there been no progress since the 1950s but life isn't much better than during slavery. It's a remarkable way of creating a narrative that denies the truth of hard-earned gains.
In my line of work, we focus on bad news AND good news. Disaster and dignity. This is essential to getting people to shift their social habits, how they spend their time, what choices they make, etc. I'm curious what keeps you from being willing to do this on this topic.
I welcome your thoughts.
Thanks for your response.
1. I'm all for deracializing America. Greg Thomas and I disagree about how far we should go with this and what steps are required to reach whatever level of racialization is appropriate. I covered this is my first response. Here's an excerpt:
We all seem to agree that today's highly racialized environment is bad, but I didn't get a clear sense of what his deracialized replacement looks like. Does he want the government to stop collecting racial data? Should we stop worrying about noticeable differences across the races (e.g., academic achievement gap, income gap, employment gap, wealth gap, life expectancy gap, differences in poverty rates, differences in incarceration rates, differences in criminal victimization rates, etc.)? What about differences relating to gender, age, sexual orientation, and other noticeable differences between easily identified groups of Americans? Should we stop worrying about them too? Should we abandon the concept of hate crimes? A lot of people would be relieved if these things happened, but we might not be a better country if we ignored these issues.
Last but not least, I didn't get a clear sense of what Greg Thomas thinks “blackness” should be. Can it be reduced to just culture? Does he think we should give up most black institutions since many of them perceive their missions to include more than just preserving black culture?
I say in a subsequent post that we need to debunk the bias narrative and show that the development narrative offers a path towards black progress. I think that's consistent with your "hero's journey" approach and having a "growth mindset" but feel free to provide more feedback.
2. Experience has taught me that language needs to be clear, concise, and unambiguous if you want to effectively communicate with with large groups of people.
You asked, "...what's wrong with presenting data showing progress of black-identified Americans IN ADDITION TO all the data around the disparities?" That approach allows people to avoid "confronting the brutal facts." It mutes the sense of purpose and urgency ("Things are OK. What's the rush?") needed to effect real and sustained change at scale.
It's fair to point out that things aren't as bad as they were in 1950, but the relative stagnation since the late 1980's is inescapable. Marc Morial of the National Urban League often refers to Black America as the caboose at the end of America's economic train. Black folks go faster or slower depending upon the speed of the train, but their relative position never changes:
https://www.washingtoninformer.com/national-urban-league-blacks-remain-relegated-to-americas-caboose/
The data I presented backs up that assertion. Equally important, progress in absolute terms has spotty at best. The Zillow report I referenced showed that black homeownership rates were lower in 2018 than they were in the mid 1980's. Real (inflation- adjusted) median household income for blacks was lower in 2017 than it was during the late 1990's:
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf
Whites, Hispanics, and Asians, by contrast, all made progress during this period. To be fair, that period included two recessions, most notably "The Great Recession" of 2007-08, but those groups still had higher incomes during that period.
The stagnation I'm describing shows up in lots of ways. You can get a feel for it if you follow what's happening in black neighborhoods in cities around the country. They lack vibrancy and often look and feel run down. The black pessimism that Pew's data shows reflects this stagnation, as does the exodus of black people from places like Baltimore, Chicago, and New York.
I understand that some people look for signs of hope, but as friends of mine like to say, "Hope isn't a strategy." That's especially true when you're trying to make big changes at scale. You have to be clear-eyed and persistent.
Thanks for these good comments. I think I have a better understand of where you are coming from.
1. Maybe I didn't read your original post closely enough but your comment here ("I'm all for deracializing America") is the first time I recall your advocating for deracialization. It's good to see this say this directly. When you previously said that "today's racialized environment is bad" I didn't interpret that as making a case for deracialization. Thanks for the correction.
The rest of the excerpt from your first response I already addressed in my most recent #2, so I'll leave that be for now.
What does Greg mean by "blackness"? I'd add to that: what does anyone mean when they say "black." The terms indeed means different things to different people. Good topic for another thread.
2. I now see much more clearly why you want to keep your message and data focused on the disparities between "black" and "white" and the lack of progress recently in such disparities. For you, showing absolute figures of progress among black-identified Americans dilutes your message. It distracts people from understand how bad the disparities are. And the key to persuading people to act is to highlight the depth of the disparity. I suppose we might call this one theory of persuasion.
I have a different theory of persuasion as, I think, does Greg. My theory is that if you present both good news and bad news, the combination gives people enough of a nudge to take action yet without pushing them into moods of pessimism and resignation. You don't lose urgency. You take urgency and add a sense of momentum.
Greg makes a great case for stories and data that support a heroic narrative, one that doesn't ignore the brutal facts but shows people rising beyond them. He also makes a strong case that if you want the American people to invest in anything, you need to show the value of what they are investing in. What do you think of this "investment" form of persuasion? Once you accept that it has validity, then it becomes hard to devote 100% of your time/attention/charts to showing how bad a particular group is doing. People want to invest in positive assets. There is a story of black-identified Americans improving their value as assets to America. Why can't we tell this story?
Again, if you have a different theory of persuasion, then what I've just written makes no sense. I get it.
Also: which stories and which data we present depends on the audience. Basic segmentation. There are some audience for whom the full bad news produces positive action. There are some audiences for which the full bad news produces complete inaction. That's why a broad repertoire of narratives and data provides for a more nimble approach in a complex world.
Thank you for taking up my invitation to discuss data just for black-identified Americans over time. Based on the data you selected (home ownership and median household income) and the years you selected (mid 80s to 2017ish), the story is negative. Are there literally no positive trends for black-identified Americans during those time periods?
Perhaps as importantly, comparisons to the 80s make sense if your goal is to assess progress in the past 30 years, particularly if you want proof of a bad news story. But what if your goal, for the reasons I've outlined, is to show real progress. I'm sure you can find other periods (1958 to 2018?) for which it is an enormously important story. What makes these numbers less valid? Again, if your theory of persuasion is to only show the bad news, then you wouldn't tell this story. But if you wanted to tell this story, you could, and the data would be just as valid. More importantly, from my perspective, it would have the effect of demonstrating the increase in value of the asset known as black-identified Americans. And counteract the widely shared extreme progressive narrative that nothing really has changed and nothing will ever get better.
As for "Hope isn't a strategy," I agree. Yet that's not what we're talking about here. Positive narratives grounded in story and data aren't just about some vague thing called "hope". There is all sorts of data from the fields of positive psychology, positive organizational studies, and applied neuroscience that provide a direct link between the narratives people holds in their minds and the actions they take. If you want to reverse "pessimism" and "stagnation" telling people that their lives suck doesn't do it. Helping them learn their capacities, build new ones, and create a new narrative for their lives helps. I imagine that providing data and charts would help you understand this argument. Perhaps that's a topic for another thread.
Thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate it.
Thanks for your comments. The timeline leading up to the symposium is long and includes thousands of words. I understand why you would think I don't want to deracialize. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't think that can happen, however, as long as large racial disparities exist and the bias narrative holds sway.
Discussions about what constitutes "blackness" and whether it needs to be redefined have been had on previous episodes of The Glenn Show, including the one that featured Greg Thomas and John McWhorter.
Being "black" is very or extremely important to 76% of Black Americans according to a survey that Pew Research did last April:
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2022/04/14/race-is-central-to-identity-for-black-americans-and-affects-how-they-connect-with-each-other/
Greg didn't define his deracialized version of "blackness" when he appeared on The Glenn Show and it's still not clear to me what that entails. As you said, that's another topic for another thread, but it's clear that the bias narrative is an integral component of "blackness" for much of Black America. The other Pew analysis I referenced shows that a large percentage of black people don't think they can achieve equality with their peers because of various forms of racism.
We seem to disagree when it comes to the best way to spur people to action. I've been around long enough to know mixing good news with bad news rarely yield good results when dealing with large groups of people. There has to be a sense of urgency in order to get people to make fundamental changes. That's what's required to reduce the disparities I've highlighted.
You have to give people clear and convincing reasons if you want them to make significant changes. The message for me is simple:
1. Racism is not a major impediment to black progress. The stagnation will continue as long as the bias narrative holds sway.
2. Black people can achieve their version of the "American Dream" if they're prepared to make fundamental changes. We see examples of this all around us, especially with black immigrants.
The simpler the message, the better. Roger Ferguson's three steps for closing the racial wealth gap, for example, are logical and easily understood. This excerpt from one of Greg Thomas' posts, by contrast, rang hollow for me:
For example, from a racialized perspective, there’s a wealth gap of $164,100 between “whites” and “blacks” in a recent Federal Reserve survey. Yet, as Ian Rowe details in his excellent work Agency:
According to the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, the median net worth of a two-parent, college-educated black family is $219,600. For a white, single-parent household, the median net worth is $60,730,” a differential of $158,870 in favor of such “blacks.”
Who compares the wealth of single parent white households with that of black married couple households? Is this meaningless "apples to oranges" comparison supposed to be good news or something that's useful if we want to close the wealth gap? All things being equal, black wealth lags white wealth across the entire distribution. That's what's important and that's the issue that needs to be addressed.
You mentioned taking a longer term perspective when talking about black progress. Maybe I didn't make this point strongly enough, but half of Black America is 32 or younger. I won't go so far as to say young people don't care about what happened 60-70 years ago, but they've only experienced stagnation. It's important to talk to them about things they've seen firsthand and to offer them a path towards a better life for them and their children.
"Who compares the wealth of single parent white households with that of black married couple households? Is this meaningless "apples to oranges" comparison supposed to be good news or something that's useful if we want to close the wealth gap?"
Ian Rowe in his book, Agency" that's who. His point, as is mine, is that the factors determining disparate statistical results MUST INCLUDE VARIABLES ASIDE FROM RACE!!
It is not true that the half of Black America 32 or younger have "only experienced stagnation," Clifton. Human beings are not stick figures in statistical measures based on the fallacious idea of race. I believe in clarity and precision in language too. So why not say SOME young people identified as black have experienced stagnation?
Have the children of the 340,000 black-identified millionaires only experienced stagnation?
I don't mean to imply that children of wealthy parents don't have problems, goodness no. But, for goodness sake, why can't you grok that from a business and investment perspective, there must be assets of some kind, tangible to intangible, to draw upon to raise angel or venture capital?
Your narrative of lack and limitation, I daresay, lends itself more to the bias narrative than the development narrative. The bias narrative is focused on how historical discrimination and so-called systemic racism is the reason we see disparities. The bias narrative is more focused on external obstacles over internal communal and cultural resources, whether expressed by individuals or the group. The development narrative points to the need for Afro-Americans to develop the skills, habits, and mindsets that will allow us to improve ourselves internally, within the group, to ameliorate the disparities and problems that still beset us.
By painting an exclusive picture of lack and limitation, you provide fuel for those who center on the bias narrative. They will point to the same statistics you do, but will look at external causes as the basis. My perspective, which transcends the bias narrative while including the reality that we as a group, and as a society, have far to go, paints a picture of our actual historical and cultural achievements as a people, and supports thereby a development narrative. One develops based on foundations. Our achievements is one such foundation.
Although personal, individual accounts aren't "statistically significant," they still can serve as representative anecdotes with larger implications. Take my daughter, for instance, now 27 years old. She is in the cohort of 32-and under that comprises 50% of the group. She grew up in an environment of working to middle-class people; within the family, it was primarily Afro-American in ethnic and cultural terms, at school, it was a diverse mixture of students from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds on Staten Island.
Her mother and I divorced when she was very young; her mother and I both remarried, so according to "statistical measures," she grew up in a "broken home." NO. She had a birth mother and a stepmother, a biological father and a stepfather--we all loved and love her and supported her growth and development. As a pre-teen, she stayed with me on weekends, and I would take her to Barnes & Nobles regularly for her to be around books and literature. She was surrounded by books and music and art at home too. She studied at the Harlem School of the Arts when I lived in Harlem.
How did she fare? Well, she was deeply disappointed when she wasn't accepted to any of the NYC specialized schools. But God works in mysterious ways. My former wife, her mom, and I agreed that she should come live with me and my wife in New Rochelle, NY, and attend the very good public high school there, rather than the lackluster high school she was zoned for in Staten Island.
She blossomed academically and otherwise, coming into her own as a young lady. And when she applied to college, she did so via early admission at Dartmouth . . . and was accepted! She continued to blossom there, majoring in computer science. In her junior year, she was selected as one of the top ten college women of the year by Vogue magazine, and was also one of three Afro-American young ladies honored by Michelle Obama on the Black Girls Rock television program.
After graduation, for several years she worked as a computer engineer in Silicon Valley. Two years ago, she applied for graduate school. She was accepted, and is currently in her last semester in a joint MBA-Engineering program at MIT.
Does my daughter's story not matter because it's relatively rare, indeed exceptional for a young person of ANY background? Cannot her story of Afro-American success despite the odds inspire others? This is an example why stories of actual success and achievement are crucial: they can inspire others who can themselves see what's possible, and can build their own aspirations for growth and development.
Here's a quote from my mentor Albert Murray on why such asset-framing is essential:
“Sometimes Americans are disposed to fair play and sometimes they are not. But they almost always invest their time, money, and enthusiasm in assets with promise, not liabilities. Even those who become involved in salvage operations have been sold on inherent potential.”
You ask about my deracialized version of blackness. Simple: it acknowledges that we are a people, an ethnic group, with a powerful culture, who have made strides in spite of almost insurmountable odds, and have contributed greatly to America's culture and conception of freedom. I don't use the term "blackness" per se because it is too akin to a persistent belief in race and racialization. We are a people, nonetheless, as I've said, with an ethnic and cultural identity. It is not necessary to hold onto the idea of race, the practice of racialization, and the mindset of a racial worldview, to have a personal and ethno-cultural group identity.
I'm just trying to get more people to realize and accept that reality, but racecraft keeps getting in the way. But there are a growing group of persons, for instance, Amiel Handelsman, who see the light at the end of the tunnel, and rather than making excuses for why the time isn't right to deracialize, shows the courage to do so NOW.
Thank you for these perspectives. I appreciate all the experience, wisdom, and data you bring. And it's healthy that we can name where we disagree, notably about the best sequence to take between deracialization and reducing disparities.
Per my prior comment, I trust you share my view that different audiences require different messages. Toward that end, I agree with you that if the audience is 25 year old black-identified Americans, comparing today's economic/educational numbers to the 1950s rings hollow. We agree there must be better messages than this. Yours might be data on disparities. I might focus my message for this group on deracialization for the sake of cultivating growth mindsets, getting out of a feeling of being stuck, and taking positive paths forward.
As for the data of 1950s versus today, that would be more valuable for the audience of anyone making decisions about where to invest public and private resources, e.g. public officials, foundations, corporate leaders, etc.—so they recognize the valuable asset they are investing in instead of continuing to see black-identified as liabilities on the balance sheet. I cannot tell you how many liberals, progressives, moderates and conservatives in my acquaintance speak about black-identified Americans (often with compassion, sometimes pity, sometimes apathy) as a problem to solve, as something to feel guilty about, etc (depending on the person), rather than as an asset to invest in. It's endemic.
In case I didn't make it clear, I am 100% behind your emphasis on shifting the public dialogue from purely income measures to also wealth measures. Oliver and Shapiro's book "Black Wealth, White Wealth" convinced me of this 25 years ago, and nothing since then has changed my thinking. Being in conversation together about how to increase the wealth of black-identified Americans—that's a conversation worth being in. We may differ on how to get there, but share a commitment to the goal.