Humanities & social sciences

Get expert assistance with your humanities and social sciences homework through our AI-driven platform. Find answers to your questions, explore insightful analyses, and enhance your understanding of complex concepts. Whether you're studying sociology, psychology, or cultural studies, our service provides accurate, informative responses tailored to your academic needs.

New Questions

In the southern world of racial apartheid I grew up in, no racialized class division was as intense or as fraught with bitter conflict as the one between poor whites and black folks. All black people knew that white skin gave any southern "cracker or peckerwood" (ethnic slurs reserved for the white poor) more power and privilege than even the wealthiest of black folks. However, these slurs were not the product of black vernacular slang, they were the terms white folks with class privilege invented to separate themselves from what they called poor "white trash." On the surface, at least, it made the lives of racist poor white people better to have a group they could lord it over, and the only group they could lord it over were black people. Assailed and assaulted by privileged white folks, they transferred their rage and class hatred onto the bodies of black people. Unlike the stereotypes projected by the dominant culture about poor black folks, class stereotypes claimed poor whites were supposedly easily spotted by skin ailments, bad dental hygiene, and hair texture. All these things are affected by diet. While poor southern black folks often had no money, they usually had homegrown food to eat. Poor whites often suffered from malnutrition. Living under racial apartheid, black children learned to fear poor whites more than other whites simply because they were known to express their racism by cruel and brutal acts of violence. And even when white folks with class privilege condemned this violence, they could never openly oppose it, for to do so they would have had to take the word of black folks over those of white folks, thus being disloyal to white supremacy. A white person of privilege opposing violence against blacks perpetuated by poor whites might easily ruin their reputation and risk being seen as a "nigger lover." When I was a small child we lived in the hills without neighbors nearby. Our closest neighbors were "white trash," as distinct from poor whites. White trash were different because they flaunted their poverty, reveled in it, and were not ashamed. Poor whites, like poor blacks, were committed to trying to find work and lay claim to respectability-they were law abiding and patriotic. White trash saw themselves as above the law and as a consequence they were dangerous. White trash were folks who, as our neighbors were fond of saying, "did not give a good goddamn." They were not afraid to take the Lord's name in vain. Most poor white folks did not want to live anywhere near black folks. White trash lived anywhere. . . .
In response to this, Garcia might say, as he sometimes does, that it is enough for Stephen to be a racist if his dislike is "racially based," That is, if he dislikes Andre because of Andre's racial designation. On this view, in order for Stephen's dislike of Andre to be racist, Stephen need not dislike him because of any beliefs he (Stephen) holds about "races" in general or about black people in particular, provided he makes a racial distinction "in his heart." But is this correct? Let's suppose that Peter X, a white but problack radical, has contempt for Andre because Peter believes that no selfrespecting black man committed to the black freedom struggle would be involved romantically with a white woman. Peter's contempt is directed at Andre because of Andre's "race," but in being contemptuous of him for this reason Peter would be simply echoing the sentiment of many blacks who believe that the cause of black liberation requires observing the rule of racial endogamy. Peter's contempt for Andre may be unjustified, but surely it is not racist, despite its being "racially based." Thus, the fact that a vicious attitude has a "racial basis" is not sufficient to ground the charge of racism; the exact nature of the corresponding racial beliefs will also be relevant. (It is perhaps also worth pointing out that Garcia's talk of making distinctions "within one's heart" is quite misleading, for surely our ability to discriminate on "racial" grounds is a cognitive capacity; and not a purely volitional one,)