WHY AMERICAN SOCIOLOGISTS ARE RACIST
Sociologists are people of the political left. That might not be a problem
if it were not for the fact that the left in America is racist. The left
in America is racist because by denying the importance of race in affecting
our values, ideas, thinking, and politics, the leftists constantly do too
little too late to seriously challenge and reduce the levels of racism.
Instead, the left talks about race as a social problem, assuming
the basic structure of American government and society is all right in its
larger dimensions. American liberalism is a liberalism in a country that
is more racist than sociologists ever imagined. The first slaves arrived
in America in 1619. This is almost 400 years of racism and at present there
is no sign that it will end anytime soon. For those 400 years the left in
America has lived with racism. It has had two major upheavals, the first
and second civil wars, to lessen the effects of racism, but America still
continues to live with racism. While the more virulent forms of racism have
been overcome, the United States remains a solidly racist country. Isn't
it logical to question the economic-political motives of people who consistently
do too little-too late? After 400 years of failure, why isn't it time to
question the left's basic approach to racism?
American sociologists always underestimate, and therefore fail to anticipate,
the resistance to racial reforms, such as the resistance in the two
reconstruction periods in American history. In fact, sociology's record is
a miserable failure in this regard. Why is it not appropriate to question
the motives of people who consistently fail to predict this considerable
resistance? Currently sociologists are supporting a new form of racial separatism
under the cover of multiculturalism. And in the name of multiculturalism,
they are censoring any alternatives to this way of thought. One has to question
the motives of sociologists who will not support any alternatives to the
multicultural separatist system.
Sociologists once found Booker T. Washington acceptable -- an acceptance
that was politically motivated. The Southerners sought a black man who would
symbolize that Reconstruction was over and who could be considered an ally
against Northerners and internal enemies, such as the populists and labor
organizers. They saw Washington as the black spokesperson who could reassure
them against the renewal of racial strife. And Northern whites wanted a black
leader who could give them a respite from the eternal race problem. They
too were ready to declare an end to the Civil War and Reconstruction (Harlan
1972:227). If we can question the motivations of those who accepted Booker
T. Washington, then why isn't it logical to question the motivation of current
sociologists for accepting today's current multicultural separatism?
There are some truths that are so painful that people either decide not to
listen to, deny or ignore them. This is the situation with the variable of
race. American intellectuals don't want to think about race so they tend
to ("deliberately") misunderstand the argument. Every American thinker has
systematically denied that racism has had a major impact on the United States
(beyond the obvious of affecting political outcomes.) Now, for every American
thinker to deny the important role of race means that they all share a political
philosophy in common (to a certain extent at least). They all deny the real
role of race in our society. And in doing so, they all are racial or racist
thinkers. This does not mean, as some sociologists have told us, that to
call all American thinkers racist is to deny racism any validity. Rather
this denial is just more evidence of the racist thinking of sociologists,
because they deliberately misunderstand the point. The traditional definition
of the political spectrum in America along economic lines still applies;
racist thinkers in America come from all the different points of the political
spectrum: extreme right wing, conservative, liberal, and Marxist. But they
all consistently and deliberately underestimate the role of race in our
society.
Sociologists Continue to Talk about Racism as Attitudes and
Not Structure
Racism is more structure than attitude. America has lived with
racism for almost 400 years and it is embedded in every aspect of its life.
People don't want to change because it costs them too much to change. And
this does not only apply to conservatives. One has to ask if middle class
black and white sociologists are not subject to the same concerns -- that
is they also are too comfortable with their level of affluence to change
their thinking.
Sociologists constantly mention that
the United States is becoming a multiculturalist nation because of immigration
and demographic changes. However, given that racism is structural and not
attitudinal there is every indication that these new immigrations will just
adapt to the given system and live within it. They will then be provided
with economic motives for not providing a greater share of the economic pie
to the underclass.
In the current fascination with "white" racism sociologists are
doing study after study uncovering the subtle ways in which whites justify
the continuance of racism. This, however, continues a racist tradition of
seeing racism as primarily an attitude and not a rational response to a racist
structure. Indeed, sociologists' support for the multicultural caste system
makes it more rational for Americans to be racist, precisely because economic
goodies are handed out on the basis of race.
It is helpful to point out the subtle
racism of white Americans. But what is not helpful is the implication that
racism has a specific color. The racism of "white" racism is actually what
is best described as sociological racism. Biology is no longer the dominant
paradigm used to support the various degrees of racism. Rather the language
of biology has been replaced by sociological terminology. We are all, black,
white and brown, participants in a racist society, and we all have to manifest
appropriate attitudes to exist within that racist society. Sociologists
concentrate on other peoples' racism while being unaware of their own.
The truth of the matter is that most people are conformists. They want to
have a peaceful, happy life and to have this life they conform to whatever
norms and structures exist at any given time (see Ogburn).
If they live in a racist society, they adapt to that society. If that racist
society can be replaced with a non-racist one, they will happily adapt to
that society. In a racist society, it is most rational to be
racist.
Sociologists Talk the Talk but Don't Walk the
Walk
James B. McKee (1993) writes of the sociological work on race
as a failure. One of the reasons he cites for this is the inability of people
to see beyond the self-interests of their own time and place -- their social
context. We would argue that human beings were evolutionarily designed not
to see beyond their social context, because to do so would bring ostracism
from the group (which, in turn, often led to death). The end result is that
most people, even the educated ones, are "sheep" that follow within the larger
guidelines of their society. It is only the odd-ball thinker who has the
combination of the right biological makeup together with at least some
courage/persistence and the right set of environmental circumstances who
challenges the system and thereby makes a breakthrough in creative thought.
(We recognize that this reference to biology runs up against the sociological
prejudice against evolutionary theory, but refer to it even if it is not
politically correct.)
Sociologists are educated people compared to most of their fellow Americans,
but the key word in "educated people" is the word "people," not "educated."
Human beings are very weak creatures and are subject to all sorts of
self-interested thinking. Indeed, it can be argued that in the social evolution
of human beings they had to develop all sorts of deceptions and denials and
wishful thinking just in order to survive. Do something wrong and see watch
how fast the person is ostracized. And since human beings often do something
wrong, they have learned all types of deception. The trouble here for educated
persons like sociologists is that, as people, those denial qualities limit
their and everyone else's ability to think freely of their social context.
That's why the vast majority of even the educated people are prisoners of
their times. Not to mention that any new thinker is punished economically
for not going along with society, and so is never heard of again.
Sociologists write beautiful words of equality and mutual understanding,
but their actions of support for separatism and their censorship of alternative
perspectives show that they are racist at heart. There is an old saying that
talk is cheap. And nothing could be much cheaper than the multicultural
sociologists' praise of themselves as wonderful people working for racial
and ethnic harmony. But in reality, the vast majority of sociologists live
in a segregated world just like the majority of more privileged Americans.
They are very comfortable in their segregated world. They live in segregated
neighborhoods; send their children to largely segregated schools; work at
universities and other occupations where the higher positions are dominated
by whites; and have friends and associates characteristic of a segregated
world. They are enjoying their lives within the racist system. Given all
this, it does not seem so far-fetched to suggest that part of the inability
of sociologists to realize the true nature of racism is their own high degree
of creature comfort in American society.
Sociologists never see their own hypocrisy for sociological (and
liberal) theory makes it possible for sociologists to have their cake and
eat it too. They can feel good about themselves as regards racial/ethnic
matters and yet not really have to sacrifice at all to feel so good. When
going to conferences in different cities, sociologists currently love to
talk about the multiculturalism of the host city and all the great ethnic
restaurants where they can eat. This obvious feel-good contentedness does
not seem to disturb any of the readers of the ASA Footnotes.
Sociologists do not want to see their own racism. They are too happy and
comfortable in their sense of superiority to their fellow Americans. And
the fact is that many of them have built reputations supporting the lies
of New Leftism/multiculturalism. It would be too unpleasant for them to consider
that they have been contributing to racism rather than resisting it. It is
in their self-interest to stick with and further promote multicultural
separatism. Their self-images and academic reputations depend on continued
support for separatism.
There is another old saying: You can deal it out, but you can't take it.
Sociologists love to call other people racists. They pride themselves on
pointing out where racism still lurks. But using the "R" word in application
to the sociological discipline brings shock and disbelief to sociologists.
Many close their minds as soon as the "R" word is applied to them. A common
defensive tactic is to become so offended at being "personally" insulted
by being called racist that they do not consider the charge at all, except
to censor it. They get this "sincere" indignation that prevents them from
really considering just how much they adhere to sociological racism.
Sociologists will also not take responsibility for their actions. Many New
Left sociologists participate in or condone political events such as the
riots at the 1968 Democratic Party National Convention in Chicago that fostered
political backlash. They, however, refuse to take any responsibility for
bringing on this backlash. The irresponsible and provocative rhetoric of
sociologists in their writings, speeches, and conversations gives conservatives
a great deal of political ammunition. Given the rhetoric of sociology,
conservatives can easily denounce them as anti-American and this sounds a
responsive chord in the larger public.
For the authors, the real proof of just how racists American sociologists
are has come in trying to resist the dominance of neo-segregationism in the
discipline by proposing a neo-integrationist approach that is not in
contradiction to the facts. For over ten years we have fought to get our
ideas published with very little success. American sociologists have consistently
engaged in censorship. In fact, our main thesis, that America's political
changes only occur within an overwhelmingly racist society, has still not
been permitted to be published by sociology professors and editors. Sociologists
have noted the ongoing racism of white Americans in their contradictory positions
of being supportive of racial tolerance while being very critical of nearly
all the measures designed to reduce racial intolerance. Sociologists have
a similar contradiction between words and action. The overwhelming resistance
from the sociological community to attempts to fight the ever-growing
neo-segregationism, marked by their arrogant and close-minded attitude that
they already have the truth, thank you very much, is proof that their
sociological liberalism is a racist liberalism.
There is very little difference between the racism of white sociologists
and black sociologists. It may be that black sociologists are even more perverted
than white sociologists, precisely because they support multicultural separatism
to a greater extent than their white counterparts. And, in this sense at
least, black sociologists are actually less open to alternative ways of thinking
than the white sociologists. Black and white sociologists at one time supported
Booker T. Washington. Black sociologists seem to be back again supporting
racist separatism.
Sociology Has Helped Strengthen the Caste System
The sociologists have been major players in pushing multiculturalism
as a philosophy and policy approach. They have provided the justification
and the apology for a new form of racial separatism in the vein of Booker
T. Washington. The United States government in cooperation with social scientists
and educators has built a stronger caste system, one that doles out rewards
on the basis of race and ethnicity, as did the Booker T. Washington separate
but equal system. (Actually, Booker T. Washington was a better person than
those sociologists who presently work for multicultural separatism. In secret,
Booker T. worked to promote integration at the very same time he publicly
worked for the separate but equal system. But our multicultural separatists
of today do not work in secret for integration. They have told the entire
world that integration does not work and therefore have given up on it and
now support separatism.) When the government starts handing out rewards on
the basis of race and ethnicity, they have now created an economic incentive
for the various racial/ethnic groups to become super racial or ethnic and
stress their differences rather than what is common to them. Indeed, one
could say that sociologists are working for racism, not against it!
The strategy of ethnic minorities, although couched in wonderful sounding
rhetoric, is actually racist in nature. There is the rhetoric of sociology
and there is the reality of how American society actually works. By spouting
non-racist terminology, ethnic minorities can disguise what is really going
on and use the economic benefits from the multicultural caste system to step
over the blacks, all with the blessing of black sociologists. One would be
hard put to think of a more diabolical scheme.
Celebrating racial/ethnic separatism leads to contentment among sociologists
and others. Consequently, they censor any attempts to criticize the caste
status quo and to start a new civil rights movement. The fact is that
sociologists have a conflict of interests. They support a separatist system
that in turn rewards them with monies to do racial/ethnic studies that are
then used to further bolster the caste system. They are, in a sense, corrupted
by the very system they helped create.
The multiculturalist impulse in sociology has contributed to the splitting
off of African-American studies from sociology and the consequent denigration
of racial/ethnic studies in sociology itself. So there is even separatism
within the discipline.
How do sociologists justify their support for separatism? Many of them don't.
Rather they continue to hide behind the myth that liberal/New Left/multicultural
sociologists are "objective" in their work. But this is just one of the most
blatant lies used to hide the fact that they are actually very political
beings. To support separatism is not being objective, it is being highly
political.
The real perfidy of multiculturalism is that sociologists are doing their
utmost to try to make the word multicultural synonymous with tolerance and
live-and-let-live. They are trying to make it nearly impossible for anyone
in the future to dissent from multiculturalism because it would be equivalent
of dissenting from tolerance itself and thereby supporting intolerance.
Sociology has had a bad influence on political debate in America. They have
polarized the nation with their insistence of replacing the old economic
political continuum with one based on positions on racial matters. And they
have thereby weakened the very people they say they support: the liberals
in the Democratic Party.
Sociologists Ignore the Truth
Because sociologists are lying about race, and because race is such a
fundamentally important factor in American society and politics, they are
also lying about almost every major assumption of the sciences, social sciences,
and the humanities. No matter how much certain sociologists try to tell the
larger sociological community that they are ignoring the truth, they continue
to ignore it. You can point out that there is no American dilemma, that it
is merely a case of the liberal's having their cake and eating it too. But
they are not listening. This is just one more way that sociologists continue
their racism.
When it comes to tenure decisions, there is an old saying that "if they like
you, they'll forgive any mistake you make, but if they don't like you, they
will find any excuse to get rid of you." A similar statement can be made
about sociological ideas: "if they like your ideas in the sense they are
politically acceptable, they will publish what you have to say regardless
of your mistakes, but if they don't find your ideas acceptable, they will
find any excuse not to publish them."
Sidney Wilhelm (1973) wrote a very provocative article on equality
as America's racist ideology, but the sociologists merely ignored it. They
pretended it was never written and went on with their racist thinking and
writings. Wilhelm got so discouraged that he dropped out and became a pig
farmer. Maybe he thought to himself, if sociologists are just to write racist
articles and books, better it be left to others.
Sociologists Have Lost Their Edge
When one looks at the African-American section of book stores one sees book
after book written about what James Baldwin called "feel good" stories. So
many of today's books dealing with African-Americans are in this feel good
tradition that describes how wonderful various African-American heros are
or were. The books written in the multicultural vein are also pretty much
in this same feel good tradition. It is an approach that just reinforces
the comfortableness of the reader with the racial caste system and in that
sense these various hero tales are separatist tales.
Sociology As a Sect
Today multicultural sociology is like a sect dominated by a New Leftism converted
into racial/ethnic separatism. Like most sects, sociology
recruits strange people on the political fringe, often ones with
chips on their shoulders. These people are alienated from the larger society,
but actually support, rather than offer any useful alternatives, to the
racial/ethnic caste system in America. These strange people then write
"politically correct" reports supporting multicultural separatism and censor
any "politically incorrect" reports.
Part of being a sect is being socially isolated. Multiculturalism has been
largely rejected by the American electorate. This has left sociologists feeling
more isolated and paranoid. Rather than adjust their moral compass, the
sociologists have chosen to live even more in their hallucinogenic dream
world of multicultural separatism.
Sociologists are much like the Southerners we knew as children
during the civil rights struggle. We looked around and thought "These people
are crazy." They've built up this whole system of lies that they all believe
in unequivocally. One could not speak the truth in the South for fear of
the Southerners' hostility, prejudice, and possible violence. These days
we have much the same feeling about our fellow sociologists. Sociologists
are living in a dream world. How ridiculous are these people who think they
can make Americans accept one hundred plus different cultures as equal to
traditional American culture when they have never been able even to convince
Americans not to dislike, hate, or fear black Americans?
Members of a sect primarily talk to each other and get their sense of truth
from the group. This is largely true of sociologists who are highly isolated
socially from the larger society. While the majority of the electorate are
to the right of the old liberal position, the vast majority of sociologists
are to the left of the majority. And as in any sect, this isolation does
not bother the members of the sociology, but rather feeds their sense of
moral superiority to the larger society. This sense of moral superiority
is unjustified, of course, but members of the sociological sect have no idea
of this. They are insulated by their own isolation of thought and social
interaction from checking their ideas with the larger world. They cannot
monitor themselves to regulate their degree of misperception of reality.
In a sense, there are no checks and balances on the system of sociological
thought.
Since sociologists feed off one another, it is somewhat like the blind leading
the blind. One sect member checks his or her thought with other sect members
and, even though the whole process is skewed and off-kilter, their own thoughts
get reinforced. The dissenter from this perspective is told to be quiet.
If the dissenter does not refrain from speaking, then stronger sanctions
are applied. In sociology, the most common action is for a dissenting paper
to be returned with a form letter with no comment at all. There is a wall
of silence from the censors, so the dissenter is often bewildered as just
what is wrong with the paper. The paper or papers are sent in again and again
and meet the same wall of silent rejection. At this point, most dissenters
would be cowed into silence, but if the dissenter is rash enough and calls
the sociology sect members on their bias, they begin to act like an employer
accused in a racial discrimination suit.
In a sect as large as sociology, there occur natural cliques of "scholarship."
These cliques only let ideologically conforming members into their group.
Dissenters are not allowed to speak. The members of the clique publish each
others papers, cite each others' works, and write letters of recommendation
and commendation for each other, all the while not at all being aware that
they are living a life of pseudo-social science.
Sociology, like most sects, are isolated from and hostile to the larger
society. Many sect personnel are hateful to the outside world and constantly
bad-mouth it. Similarly, sociologists use such provocative language as physical
and cultural "genocide" for the traditional process of assimilation. What
idiocy won't sociologists support? For instance, the New Leftist/multiculturalist
impulse has brought about the absolute lunacy of Afrocentrism (see Lefkowitz).
Sociologists have their own language of multicultural separatism that has
been rejected by an electorate who now feels that even the word "liberal"
is too far to the political left. The larger world sees the sociologists
as largely irrelevant and will only allow them to speak on television on
specific micro studies, rather than let them comment on macro approaches
to society wide problems. The larger world sees the sociologists as somewhat
crazy -- as people who talk only amongst themselves with their special vocabulary
of separatism. And the larger public sees sociologists as liberals who have
nothing good to contribute..
Bibliography
Lefkowitz,Mary
1996 Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as
History. New York: Basic Books.
McKee, James B.
1993 Sociology and the Race Problem: The Failure of a Perspective. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Ogburn, William Field
1961 "Social change and racial relations." Pp. 200-207 in Jitsuichi Masuoka
and Preston Valien (eds.), Race Relations, Problems and Theory: Essays in
Honor of Robert E. Park. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press.
Willhelm, Sidney M.
1973 "Equality: America's racist ideology." Pp. 136-157 in Joyce A. Ladner
(ed.), The Death of White Sociology. New York: Random House.