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.
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.