Sign in with Facebook
Stetson's Reviews > Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents
Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents
by
by
Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, makes the case that America is a caste system analogous to that of India's but organized on the basis of race. She strongly implies that the 2016 Presidential Election was somehow evidence for this claim and then outlines what she posits are the features of the American caste system (8 pillars of caste):
Wilkerson's 8 Pillars of Caste:
1) Divine Will and The Laws of Nature
2) Heritability
3) Endogamy and the control of marriage and mating
4) Purity vs pollution
5) Occupational hierarchy
6) Dehumanization and Stigma
7) Terror as enforcement, cruelty as a means of control
8) Inherent superiority vs inherent inferiority
Wilkerson's thesis is ostensibly ridiculous as a description of contemporary America, which is actually organized as a hierarchy of competence where competence is roughly determined by free market forces (any serious discussion of political economy is strikingly absent from Caste), a meritocracy in other words. Wilkerson's claims are also reckless, especially given the media attention given to her work (i.e. Oprah's recommendation). This is not a work that is seeking to achieve the racial reconciliation and harmony of a post-racial America where all races and creeds can cash the promissory note of the American founding and the American dream. It wallows in the racial sins and misery of America's past (slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow) and labels those evils as America's essence rather than the chronic disease that America has always aspired to eliminate.
I would be more inclined to take her arguments seriously if she didn't assiduously avoid all the aspects of American life that plainly contradict her or at least mitigate against such a stark perspective. For instance, Wilkerson completely ignores Asian American minorities in her book. She fails to address why in a caste system organized by race with "whiteness" as the dominant identity that Asian Americans are the most educated, wealthiest ethnic group. Of course black/African Americans historically suffered much deeper, more severe iniquities than Asian Americans, but her thesis is predicated on the claim that society is systemically organized to ensure dominant status for white Americans. It's just sloppy to have such a glaring omission, a white elephant of sorts that lurks behind every line. Moreover, Wilkerson's seeming aversion to sociological and economic data is evidenced as she opts for the telling of emotive anecdotes of racial iniquities. Wilkerson is a moving writer; however, the lack of rigor, specificity, data, and analysis belie her true intentions, which are those of an activist rather than a scholar (activists don't have time for pesky facts or to dissect a delicate, hot-button topic in a balanced, dispassionate fashion).
There were some aspects of Wilkerson's discussions of race that I thought were accurate. For instance, she does point out that there is no biological (i.e. genetic) definition of race, making it decidedly a social invention. I think this is an important insight, but Wilkerson does not follow this understanding through to its conclusion. Given the harm caused by the arbitrary use of skin color as a historical system of oppression and disenfranchisement, we should aim for a future where skin color is no longer a meaningful measure (a color-blind egalitarian society where one's merit entirely determines one's place in the social hierarchy). Despite Wilkerson's vagueness on how this supposed American racial caste system can be remedied, it is clear that this is not the vision she has for America's future or even believes that such a future is possible.
I could belabor my critique, but I think a recommendation to readers interested in this topic would be better. Political Tribes by Amy Chua, although not as directly engaged on the issue of race, is still far superior in its discussion of similar issues, a balanced, reasonable analysis of the tribalism in contemporary American society.
Wilkerson's 8 Pillars of Caste:
1) Divine Will and The Laws of Nature
2) Heritability
3) Endogamy and the control of marriage and mating
4) Purity vs pollution
5) Occupational hierarchy
6) Dehumanization and Stigma
7) Terror as enforcement, cruelty as a means of control
8) Inherent superiority vs inherent inferiority
Wilkerson's thesis is ostensibly ridiculous as a description of contemporary America, which is actually organized as a hierarchy of competence where competence is roughly determined by free market forces (any serious discussion of political economy is strikingly absent from Caste), a meritocracy in other words. Wilkerson's claims are also reckless, especially given the media attention given to her work (i.e. Oprah's recommendation). This is not a work that is seeking to achieve the racial reconciliation and harmony of a post-racial America where all races and creeds can cash the promissory note of the American founding and the American dream. It wallows in the racial sins and misery of America's past (slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow) and labels those evils as America's essence rather than the chronic disease that America has always aspired to eliminate.
I would be more inclined to take her arguments seriously if she didn't assiduously avoid all the aspects of American life that plainly contradict her or at least mitigate against such a stark perspective. For instance, Wilkerson completely ignores Asian American minorities in her book. She fails to address why in a caste system organized by race with "whiteness" as the dominant identity that Asian Americans are the most educated, wealthiest ethnic group. Of course black/African Americans historically suffered much deeper, more severe iniquities than Asian Americans, but her thesis is predicated on the claim that society is systemically organized to ensure dominant status for white Americans. It's just sloppy to have such a glaring omission, a white elephant of sorts that lurks behind every line. Moreover, Wilkerson's seeming aversion to sociological and economic data is evidenced as she opts for the telling of emotive anecdotes of racial iniquities. Wilkerson is a moving writer; however, the lack of rigor, specificity, data, and analysis belie her true intentions, which are those of an activist rather than a scholar (activists don't have time for pesky facts or to dissect a delicate, hot-button topic in a balanced, dispassionate fashion).
There were some aspects of Wilkerson's discussions of race that I thought were accurate. For instance, she does point out that there is no biological (i.e. genetic) definition of race, making it decidedly a social invention. I think this is an important insight, but Wilkerson does not follow this understanding through to its conclusion. Given the harm caused by the arbitrary use of skin color as a historical system of oppression and disenfranchisement, we should aim for a future where skin color is no longer a meaningful measure (a color-blind egalitarian society where one's merit entirely determines one's place in the social hierarchy). Despite Wilkerson's vagueness on how this supposed American racial caste system can be remedied, it is clear that this is not the vision she has for America's future or even believes that such a future is possible.
I could belabor my critique, but I think a recommendation to readers interested in this topic would be better. Political Tribes by Amy Chua, although not as directly engaged on the issue of race, is still far superior in its discussion of similar issues, a balanced, reasonable analysis of the tribalism in contemporary American society.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Caste.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
August 3, 2020
– Shelved as:
to-read
August 3, 2020
– Shelved
August 5, 2020
–
Started Reading
August 5, 2020
–
3.0%
August 5, 2020
–
13.0%
August 5, 2020
–
22.0%
August 6, 2020
–
40.0%
August 6, 2020
–
46.0%
August 6, 2020
–
52.0%
August 6, 2020
–
75.0%
August 6, 2020
–
87.0%
August 7, 2020
–
98.0%
August 7, 2020
– Shelved as:
non-fiction
August 7, 2020
– Shelved as:
politics
August 7, 2020
– Shelved as:
social-commentary
August 7, 2020
– Shelved as:
sociology
August 7, 2020
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 335 (335 new)
Hi Charles, the contention you raise is tangential to my review unlike my commentary about Wilkerson's thesis. Wilkerson argues (though she does so vaguely) that America has a contemporary caste system (i.e. social hierarchy) organized on the basis of race. If this is the case, she has to address the differential success between racial groups (i.e. Asian Americans) and why/how race affects that success/status. Wilkerson could to some extent try and argue (maybe she would) that status in the caste system is separate from financial success and education level, but she seems to imply or outright claim the opposite in her work. Either way in complicates and qualifies, if not outright falsifies, her central argument.To directly address your point about the NFL, I would point you to the large amount of commentary and journalistic work dedicated to this question. I would recommend reading Jason Whitlock's work on this issue (he is a prominent black/African American sports journalist/columnist). One of the major reasons for the lack of diversity isn't for lack of trying to recruit diversely at the top level of head coach (check out NFL efforts to hire diversely like the Rooney Rule), but rather a problem persuading diverse applicants to enter in at the lowest assistant coaching positions so that they can rise through the ranks (typically the pool from which eventual NFL head coaches are hired from).
I am not going to elucidate on the contrasts between forced/choice migration. The Warmth of Other Suns may be a good place for you to start. In addition, you may want to understand the period of reconstruction and the Jim Crow south to further gain a sense of why Asian Americans are not an apt comparison. Did Asian Americans ever suffer from redlining or any other systemic oppression?Furthermore, if you are citing Jason Whitlock as a "prominent" anything you are further misinformed than I previously thought. I am familiar with the Rooney Rule, and how the dominant caste consistently makes a concerted effort to nullify it.
I would suggest you seek out Bomani Jones' analysis of the subject and become more familiar with just one of many examples that refutes your position. Good day, sir.
I would also suggest Albert Woodfox's Solitary as an example of how the dominant caste shifted away from slavery to the prison system to further their agenda. Or Reading with Patrick by Michelle Kuo.
Charles, your comments are appreciated but they again are tangential to the actual argument being made. No one here is denying that black/African Americans suffered uniquely horrible historical grievance. What is under discussion is contemporary society. There is no reasonable way to claim that contemporary American society is organized hiearchially by race (hence the reason for bringing up the broad and impressive educational and financial success of Asian American). By the way, some Asian Americans did suffer systematic oppression during WWII when there was Japanese internment.
How do you explain this, "White college graduates on average made almost $5,000 more annually one year after graduating with a bachelor’s degree than their Black peers with a similar level of education. After three years, the disparity grew larger."?
Are you comparing the experience of the Japanese during WWII to a quarter of a century of chattel slavery? I just want to be very clear.
There are obstensibly income gaps between racial groups, which involve many variables. Attributing and breaking down the causal effects of each relevant variable typically requires careful econometric analysis (and usually more evidence and analysis beyond that). Would you say there is an anti-Hispanic prejudice that explains the larger income and wealth gaps between Asian/Hispanic populations than the black/white ones in the US?My point about Japanese internment wasn't to compare to chattel slavery (they aren't equivalent obviously nor was internment as lengthy). It was to point out that your claim that Asian Americans haven't faced systemic oppression in US history was glaringly ignorant.
I would agree that it is reflected as part of a larger caste system within the US, yes. Systemic as in institutionalized? Not even close. The situation with WWII was the direct result of a larger conflict, not the result of an entire system designed to keep them as a subordinate class. You are yet to provide a substantive response to either one of the issues I address, simply attributing them to, essentially, other forces. The clear nexus between the two examples I have provided corroborate Wilkerson's thesis. The very fact that we are able to distinguish between Japanese Americans further underscores my point. Good day, sir.
Charles, you can say whatever you like but that doesn't transfigure what you actually said into what you claim it to be. I am happy to get into the weeds of all these issues if you like and if it adds to your understanding of my perspective on Wilkerson's work. However, it seems you have a particular emotional investment in viewing things a certain way regardless of the facts and arguments being made.
I am starting to question whether you actually read the book or somehow skimmed it. ON page 75, I would argue, Wilkerson presents her thesis:..."caste systems live on in hearts and habits, insitituions and infrastructures... still [living] with the residue of codes that prevailed for far longer than they have not." If you are willing to deny the validity and accuracy of that statement, you truly have shone a spotlight on the glaringly ignorant.
Thank you for helpfully highlighting how sloppy Wilkerson is with language and her arguments (something I point out in the review). The quote you highlight is drivel in floral language. Wilkerson is what claiming that the remnant of America's racial caste system has consequences on contemporary society? Seems to be what that statement is saying. Ok sure, that is a very banal, widely accepted claim which is not deserving of a book. However Wilkerson's real claim in Caste (largely implied not explicitly argued in any real detail) and how the book is marketed is that society TODAY is a racial caste system. This argument is ridiculous for a number of reasons some of which I have already highlighted, and I am happy to go into more.
Obviously, wrt your point about AAPI, the model minority myth is at play. Read the chapter on it in So You Want to Talk About Race. Also, Stetson's criticism of "floral language" is rich considering his own ostentatious vocab and style.
Kara, I mention the success of Asian Americans because Wilkerson's choice to entirely ignore them is one of many flaws in her argument. You can invoke the "model minority" argument, which is an unserious argument invented out of political expediency in a reactionary manner, but it still is an idea inconsistent with Wilkerson's argument.
He didn't read the book.
Charles that's a ridiculous statement. I read every last word of the book, and I have listened to numerous interviews of Wilkerson on the book. I've read the book more closely than almost everyone who is giving glowing reviews without engaging with any of the actual content.The reason that both of you are desperate to attempt to discredit my comments on Wilkerson's book is because I point out its glaring weaknesses and do so persuasively and for some reasons or another you two are emotionally invested in her worldview/arguments.
You didn't read the book. Peace.
You can come watch me re-read the book for you and give you commentary in real-time on every factual omission/error and logical fallacy or misrepresentation in the book if you like, Charles.
You do realise that the Asian americans in the US are almost always from among the most privileged groups from their countries right? Almost all the Indian Americans for example are from the uppermost castes which is why they are one of the most privileged and wealthy groups which only goes to reinforce the author’s thesis. In fact it’s that privilege, educational and social capital that enables them to move to the US in the first place among all their counterparts, the visa process automatically screens for this whether intentional or not.
If you were to look at the oppressed Dalits in India as the counterparts to the majority upper caste Indian Americans, you can easily see that the plight of black people in America is mirrored. So of all things I don’t see how you took one of the things which would most support the thesis of the book and somehow turned it into something that supposedly negates it.
Chockalingam, you're conflating her argument about caste between the caste system in India and the supposed social hierarchy in America that she analogize to that Indian caste system. She argues the American caste is based on race as in organized by race with white Europeans occupying the top position. The status and success of Asian Americans (a diverse group of many ethnic backgrounds not just Indian or Chinese who are all generally doing very well) is a glaring counterfactual that she doesn't address. Your argument is that these Asian Americans have merely transferred their wealth/privilege from one society to another is a different argument than Wilkerson's. However that argument is also deeply flawed because it doesn't address Asian immigrants of poor backgrounds who have gone on to success and Asian Americans who have been living in the US for many generations and enjoyed being continuously successful.There are additional reasons why Wilkerson's thesis is wrong such as a body of economic, psychological, and sociological research that demonstrates that contemporary American society is generally organized as a hierarchy of competence where competence is determined by market demands, which in our society is usually intelligence. Subsequently, variation in intelligence tends to explain two-thirds of an individual's financial success. These issues are entirely ignored by Wilkerson.
@Chockalingam: Even if many immigrants to the US or Canada for that matter come from more privileged backgrounds in their societies of origin, that would not necessarily confer advantages to them in a host society that is caste-like or highly discriminatory. Privileged Indian immigrants may have a relative advantage compared to Indian immigrants from less privileged backgrounds, but their success in the US would still be an interesting phenomenon to explain - I reserve judgment on whether or not the success of Asian Americans disproves the theory behind the book, because I haven’t read it. It would certainly be interesting to hear Wilkerson’s take on that question, though. Also, what would Wilkerson say about social and educational capital that immigrants may have, as you note? If a system can be overcome through social and educational capital (eg an immigrant group believing in themselves and their children because of their place in their societies of origin), then that system doesn’t seem quite as rigid and impenetrable to me. @Wilkerson: I am curious about your confidence in the market demands and intelligence as explanatory variables. Do you really think that these are truly objective criteria or independent variables that aren’t themselves products of social biases?
Hi John, thank you for the comments. I would have appreciated if Wilkerson addressed some of the issues you raised.To address your question, I think it's difficult to say that the market ever demands something of truly objective value but that the demand in it of itself creates practical value of whatever is demanded (economic theory is not my expertise otherwise I'd have a more elegant way of making my point here).
So in the case of our current mixed market economy in the US, generally the most in-demand skills and growth-creating economic activity is predicated on activities/skills that require high intelligence (as in the measure G aka IQ). I highlighted the relationship between IQ and financial success to illustrate that point. There are other lines of evidence that support this contention as well. However, I think you comment does call important attention to the fact that there are lots of other skills/abilities/traits that are in-demand in the US economy. I think these soft skills are areas where bias and prejudice can affect outcomes but not necessarily in the ways one might typically expect (i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation). For instance, taller, more attractive people have a higher likelihood of receiving promotions/raises/higher salaries independent of competence measures. Hence, my reluctance without really persuasive evidence to immediately attribute explanatory weight to amorphous variables like social biases.
Thanks, Stetson. Does empirical research suggest a strong positive link between IQ and financial success beyond a certain threshold ? I guess you are not exactly saying that, but I would wager a guess that there are a number of attributes other than those measured in IQ tests that matter even more... as you note as well. My major concern with IQ tests btw is that there seem to be cultural biases in them that result in skewers result where you would expect more normal distributions. I recall that IQ tests scores tended to be higher among children and youth in one part of North York (former suburb of Toronto) compared to another one that had more recent immigrants and ethnic minorities. Not an expert on this, though. I have to agree with you wholeheartedly that there are many other biases out there that we don’t usually think of that may be quite harmful to merit or competency-based advancement : you mention height, I would add weight and perhaps, for males, lack of a square chin.
I'm fairly sure that IQ is the strongest known predictor of financial success (this doesn't rule out the possibility that there may be a co-linear variable that is actually causal though; intelligence as we can measure it seems to be the likely culprit in my opinion). There are some known personality traits that are correlated with financial success too, e.g. high conscientiousness in concert with low agreeableness. However, these are significantly less predictive than IQ. So there has been a ton of research into the questions of cultural bias in IQ tests, especially after the publication of The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein. However, to my knowledge the verdict from the experts is that they've tried to rigorously evaluate whether there is a cultural bias in IQ testing (using culturally tailored IQ testing and so on) and were not able to substantiate evidence of bias. The field of clinical psychology as a whole regards IQ testing as a reliable and valid way to measure intelligence. Overall, this is a complex topic (basically a whole sub-discipline in the field of psychology) so I'd defer to the experts on these questions. I know some prominent intellectuals, some of them psychologists or neuroscientists, swear by the strength of the empirical literature supporting the reliability and validity of IQ testing, e.g. Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, Richard Haier, Sam Harris, etc.
In addition to the question of cultural bias, the publication of The Bell Curve also precipitated a deluge of criticism of the concept of intelligence itself, the validity of intelligence testing, and so on (Stephen Jay Gould I believe was the most prominent of these critics - see The Mismeasure of Man).
As I admit, intelligence research is a complicated field, especially since the advent of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies in the field of genetics/genomics, with a lot of ongoing debate. However, in my reading of the lit from the various fields that touch on intelligence research and in listening to lots of expert opinions, it would seem that there is a lot of hard, empirical evidence to suggest IQ testing is a legitimate way to measure intelligence. It is just important to keep in mind that it is measuring "general intelligence," which is basically two things, verbal facility and quantitative reasoning capacity. The field of clinical psychology as a whole regards IQ testing as a reliable and valid way to measure intelligence and colleges often use a proxy IQ test (SAT specifically) for admissions.
Apologies for the length of this response, John, but you do bring up an important issue too about IQ and thresholds. It's often not the higher the better per se as individuals with remarkably high IQ scores often have social difficulties, which often negatively affect financial success. So IQ with its relationship to financial success is very predictive in like a normal range say between 70 and 130. Given that the average for a given population is normalized to 100 and the standard deviation is usually 15, only like 15.5% of the population is above 115 (the average IQ of individuals earning a PhD for context).
I appreciate your detailed explanations and your intellectual courage, Stetson.
As a White male, I do not think you can accurately speak on the oppression Blacks have experienced in this country. You said “the book wallows in the racial sins of America�, but you fail to recognize it is the very creation of a racial caste that has forced Blacks into specific and uncompromising positions. Some wish to rid America of racism but, with the election of 45, it is clear we have a long way to go. Unfortunately, skin color will always be THE measure, because America’s “founding fathers� terrorized and enslaved blacks for centuries; their ancestors have continued to perpetuate the terror based on skin color. You should “belabor� your critique, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Hi Hilary, this type of objection to my review is hackneyed. Invoking this predictable mixture of "standpoint theory" and "critical race theory" is a boorish way to suppress discussion, debate, dissent, etc on a sensitive topic (if you're actually open to learning more about the epistemological problems and logical fragility of the ideas you have deployed I would direct you to New Discourses, which is a great site with a lot of accessible explainers on these and related topics).Moreover, do you not think it a little presumptuous to assume my race? Does my light-skinned appearance automatically mean that I am a "White" person? You really don't have any idea what my ethnic background is. I think it would be wise and respectful to leave it out of our discussion of my review of Caste.
Additionally, citing the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the U.S.A. is not somehow evidence of systematic racism in America. It is a decidedly flawed argument. There are many well-respected political scientists whose research persuasively indicates that many other factors (not racism nor racial grievance nor white supremacy) influenced the election of President Trump.
If you review the comment thread, you will see the several times where I have called attention to really crucial facts that illustrate why and how America is not organized as a race-based social hierarchy. If you're not engaging with these facts and attacking my personal features, then you're not making a serious argument or being a respectful person.
John wrote: "I appreciate your detailed explanations and your intellectual courage, Stetson."Thanks, John. You've been very thoughtful and open-minded. Enjoyed our discussion.
Oh please. You’re white, and it is precisely white supremacist and racist ideologies that Trump ran his campaign on.
Hilary, I'm part Ashkenazi Jewish, which for a long time in America was not considered "white." Some people in America still don't consider said ethnicity to be "white." So you'll have to unpack the idea of what "white" is and you'll begin to realize there's a fair bit of semantic elasticity that you're exploiting so that things fit into whatever narrative/worldview you want them to. That isn't how honest argumentation is done.I'm also not sure why you're so bent on bringing up the topic of the President. This is a book review about Caste and the main topics of that book (not Donald Trump). In my previous response, I pointed out that there is tons of research on the 2016 Presidential Election, none of which unequivocally nor persuasively shows what you claim. You're just regurgitating political talking points, which doesn't work as an honest or nuanced form of argumentation either.
My arguments are a direct result of the fact that your review made no sense in terms of what Caste was about. It leads me to believe you didn’t actually read the book. Your “opinion� is merely a shoddy coat of paint that attempts to hide your elitist and “casteist� views. I’m ashamed to share Jewish heritage with you. My roots are also centered in Blackness. Until you’ve learned to have empathy for your fellow man, especially your fellow Black man, your views will remain nothing but stuff and words rooted in untruths. You just string together a whole lot of nothing about how there’s no race, there’s only hard work. OKAY, for someone with Jewish heritage to make such ridiculous remarks is unfathomable. I am convinced you did not read this book, and if you did, I wonder where your head is at.
Well I read every last page of the book and listened to a half dozen interviews of the author, including David Remnick's interview where he stumps her with a question about America's celebration of black cultural figures which she has no coherent or direct response too, choosing instead to bring up the history of minstrelsy - something only tangential to his actual question. Additionally, you're really missing the point of what I'm saying. I've literally never said that only "hard work" determines success. Ostensibly, that would be an incredibly naive oversimplification. I asserted that America's social hierarchy is generally organized by competence where competence is determined by market demands. Moreover, I argued that our market based economy tends to demand intellectual skills/production. Intelligence is unfortunately not a trait solely determined by "hard work." There are many variables some of which include work ethic and growing up in a good environment, but the most up-to-date research on intelligence indicates genetics play a large role (see the work of Drs. Plomin and Haier). The exact heritability figure is up for debate but most put it between 50% and 80% (with the upper bound estimate thought to be more likely).
I'm not sure why you're so eager to try and insult me simply for sharing my thoughts on a book I read. You can cast insults all you like, but I'm certain I know what's in my heart of hearts (IAT is bunk science before you even bring that up). I bear no ill will towards anyone and harbor plenty of empathy for those who are struggling or who face injustice. Actually being honest and accurate about the realities of American society is important to achieving social progress and harmony. Wilkerson's Caste wasn't helping achieve that goal.
We cannot achieve the goal of social progress and harmony when America is still under the shadow of racism and erasure. How do you think 45 got elected? It was by the very people Caste, the book, is calling out. So, you are not being honest and accurate in your assessment. You are just trying to talk about something that cannot be achieved without acknowledging the past.
I think understanding historical injustices related to race are important to learn about and discuss, and I think that's clear from my review and subsequent comments. It is clearly not something that I was disputing or criticizing in my review. The only parts of Caste that are worth the read are the parts about historical injustices: slavery, lynching, Jim Crow. It is difficult to right the wrongs of the past (America has made an effort). It is also may be a foolhearty effort. It may be better to move forward in the direction of progress and prosperity for all. Additionally, I think it's equally ignorant to ignore the recent historical progress that has been made towards racial harmony and realizing a post-racial egalitarian meritocracy. The election of President Trump detracts nothing from this progress (Please read some work by respectable, ideally peer-reviewed, political scientists on the 2016 election - much of the analysis like in the accessible work from Pew Research show educational divisions in the electorate explain the outcome more so than opinions on race). The problem is that Wilkerson and her intellectual allies (figures like Ibram X. Kendi and Ronin DiAngelo) are not actually calling for such a post-racial meritocratic future - the future envisioned by Dr. MLK Jr.
Wilkerson's argument is that TODAY America is a caste system based on race. This is the argument that I take umbrage with because it is ludicrous. She spends little to no time in her book actually trying to substantiate this wild claim in any serious, let alone rigorous, way. The above comment thread touches on the many deficiencies in her thesis.
At this point, the entirety of your argument right now is "Hey, look at our uncouth, boorish, capricious, loud-mouthed President!" This isn't a serious argument for the existence of a race-based caste system in America. How does this thesis account for the election of Barack Obama prior to Trump? It's just shallow to premise an entire argument about the structure of American society on who was elected President. Why? Well here are some inconvenient facts that help illuminate why: only around 60% of eligible American voters actually voted in 2016, and Trump lost the popular voted by 3 million votes. How does his election make America racist? Why is a political election to one specific office, the presidency, say anything directly about cultural ideas? Isn't this reading into things way way way too much.
Moreover, it's fantastical (as in a complete fantasy) to believe that racism will be forever and utterly eliminated. There will always be some bigoted people just like there will always be crime and always be misery and poverty somewhere. However, we live in a society where bigoted people are shamed and chased out of positions of leadership and power. In fact, charges of racism are such politically effective attacks, they are often overused and used against political undesirables like Trump (and Romney before him by the way). Anyway, books like Caste aren't really even about interpersonal racism (Wilkerson herself says this often in interviews even though she likes to tell anecdotes about possible racial slights like being crowded in an airplane). They're about claims of "systemic racism." However, as I've outlined, this theory of "systemic racism" is fallacious. It is generally an untestable (unfalsifiable) theory predicated on circular reasoning that tends to selectively ignore counterfactual evidence instead of developing explanations for those counterfactuals.
Your contention that America is now a "hierarchy of competence" is itself racist and casteist, given that the median white family has more than 10 times the wealth of the median Black family.
Sam, please cite where that statistics is from as there are different ways those stats break down. I've seen various figures on income and wealth by ethnicity. Moreover, the income/wealth gap is even larger between Asian and black and Asian and Hispanics than the white and black gap. How does race explain that? It is also important to adjust for age as prime earning years tend to be in mid to late life. The average black american is almost a decade younger than the average white American I believe (the white population is definitely significantly older).
Additionally, the wealth gap vs the income gap is important. There is less of an income gap but more of a wealth gap (in stats I've seen). There are several explanations for this some include historical injustices like redlining. However, the effects of historical injustices don't nullify the general mechanisms that organize America's economy and subsequently society.
Coleman Hughes has some interesting thoughts on this issue and other related content about race in America. Thomas Sowell touches on some of these issues in his work as well. Worth reading.
So no, my contentions are not racist at all. Engage with the actual content of my argument. Don't resort to ad hominem.
Thank you for sharing the WashPo article, Sam. However, I think those data are entirely either additional evidence to the points I have been making in this thread or they fail touch on the other data points I have been mentioning.One of the weakest aspects of the analysis of the article is the authors failure to control for confounding variables (important in this type of research). For instance, there is no adjustment for the differences in age of the various populations compared. This is an issue I brought up before and I actually dramatically underestimated how big the relative age difference between the white and black populations. Pew Research has the average age of white Americans at 58 while the average age of black Americans at 27. Huge difference! This ostensibly has an important influence on a measures like wealth (prime earning years are in mid-to-late life).
Regardless of some of the limitations of the linked analysis, there are still several inconvenient trends in the data for those who are trying to argue that the disparities are a result of racism. We can dig into the weeds of them if you like.
By all means, just keep going. It’s an amazing performance you’re putting on here.
Sam, if you're not interested in having an intellectually honest and good faith discussion about empirical facts (indicated by the tone of your comments), then why are you here in the comments of this review? Does it make you feel like a morally righteous and an important person to go around on the internet insinuate calumnies against those who don't agree with you?
I just think it’s amazing, the lengths you are going to - in an obscure comment thread, no less - to support the unsupportable proposition that racism is over, caste no longer exists and that’s that. You’re making a fool of yourself l, and if you had more self-awareness, you would be abashed.
The irony of the fact you're in my comment thread commenting this is apparently lost on you, Sam.On me: I'm an intellectually curious and engaged individual so I am happy to engage in discussion on important and interesting topics.
On your claim: You're not even characterizing my position accurately. I have never argued that "'racism is over." It's sophomoric to believe that is my position and so is holding such a position. My position that America is NOT a caste system organized by race is demonstrated by many lines of evidence (some of which I have touched on previously).
On me: I am eager to demonstrate this because it is a plain fact to all those with knowledge of some basic facts and figures about American society and some understanding of economics and sociology can easily discern. However, there is a desperate effort to propagandize the narrative that America is a horrible place that systematically oppresses minorities. It's a ridiculous position. I don't want to live in that distorted reality. We need to live in the world of facts and objective truth if we are to improve life for all people.
At what point did America stop being "a caste system organized by race," then?
After the official end to the Jim Crow era obviously.
So Congress and the courts turned off the caste system like a light switch by issuing rulings and passing legislation.
Are you playing ignorant? You do understand that in order for legal changes to occur cultural change has to come first? And that in the American system broad consensus is essentially required in order to make legal changes? This, the 1968 Civil Rights act codified the broad cultural sentiments that were developing for decades before.
Did you read this book?
Yes, every last page and several interviews of the author. There is little to no detailed or rigorous treatment of contemporary American culture related to issues of race in the book. Her evidence for a contemporary racial caste is the predominantly the past (which we've addressed already why its problematic to extend to today in full force), Donald Trump's election as president (a myopic misinterpretation of the 2016 election results see any halfway decent and honest political science on the 2016 election), and a few anecdotes about awkward personal experiences she has had, which were ambiguously related to race (e.g. being crowded in an airplane by an overweight white guy, being mistook interviewee, and receiving poor service at a restaurant).She hardly engages with any sociological or economic data related to race (as you're not engaging with the content of what I have been saying either). Furthermore, she ignores all the inconvenient facts about how other racial groups, especially Asian Americans, are fairing in current American society. Plus, her thesis rarely if ever accounts for any political economy or the ideas of the American founding or the actual diversity of ideas concerning race in contemporary culture. To my recollection, I don't think she even name checks Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.!
So how do your beliefs about race translate into politics? Do you think that Black Lives Matter activists are just...confused about their own experiences?
The fact that you bring up Asian American further confirms you seem to have missed her point.