Some groups can’t turn afford to turn that page
After losing the last presidential election, some Democrats are grasping at straws to explain what went wrong. Take Senator-elect Elissa Slotkin, for instance, who bluntly claimed identity politics should “go the way of the dodo.” Her reference to the bluish-grayish bird driven into extinction by hunters in the late 17th century suggests the party should permanently remove any reference to identity from its platform. This would mean no more championing criminal justice reform, voting rights legislation, women’s rights, or any policy designed to help a particular group. Yet, this strategy would overlook injustices Black people experience and threaten the integrity of the party’s multiracial coalition. Despite Slotkin and others presenting this strategy as a benign effort to expand support, it’s clear that silencing conversations about identity would harm the black community. As well as other marginalized groups.
This pearl-clutching discourse over “identity politics” demonstrates that in American society, the appeal to white voters is often made at the expense of Black voters. Of course, the irony isn’t lost on the black community that anti-black racism is the most harmful type of identity politics. Simply by being Black, you are placed at an inherent disadvantage in this country. For instance, Black people typically earn less than their white counterparts. This is not conjecture but rather a reflection of our current circumstances. Researchers William and Darity noted that “in 2019, the median black worker earned 24.4% less per hour than the typical white worker, an even larger wage gap than in 1979, when it was 16.4%.” Objectively speaking, racism has persisted, and it negatively impacts the lives of Black people.
Last year, the National Association of Realtors released a study demonstrating the gap between Black and white homeownership is at its worst point in a decade. For many, the so-called American dream is out of reach. Instead of talking about how identity impacts our experiences to examine how we can collectively produce a more just society, some are anxious to turn a page and stop talking about race altogether. Nevertheless, Black students are less likely to attend schools with adequate resources or be accepted to higher learning institutions, a phenomenon worsened by bans on affirmative action and diversity programs. Following a national ban, Black enrollment at “prestigious smaller colleges such as Amherst College, in Massachusetts, to highly selective Ivy League schools, like Brown and Columbia,” have all declined, according to The New York Times. And yet, some people are convinced that identity politics, rather than anti-black racism, is the thorn in America’s lion paw.
The Democratic party has failed to win the majority of white voters in a presidential election since Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even if Americans decided to ignore race, it wouldn’t stop its impact. A color-blind approach is counterproductive. As social psychologist Jennifer Richeson noted, white Americans tend to shift toward conservative policies when they’re confronted with a ‘majority-minority.’ Her research further established that when some are exposed to information about demographic changes, such as Census projections that claim white people will become a minority by 2045, their endorsement of conservative policies increases. Indeed, “it’s likely to be associated with increased erosion of progressive race-related social policies,” Richeson shared. Anxiety over demographic changes likely contributed to increased support for conservative leadership. Yet, if we ignore that someone’s identity and status impact their political attitudes, we will avoid a much-needed conversation.
Anti-black racism is a form of identity politics as it targets an individual group of people based on the color of their skin, the texture of their hair, and their facial features. And yet, when politicians or pundits talk about their weariness of “identity politics,” they’re almost always referring to the need to quell discussions about racism. They see such discussions as divisive, so much so that they would rather avoid the discourse than affirm the rights of the most marginalized. However, this is an unfair tradeoff, as the privileged, in this case, would benefit from this manufactured silence, reducing the suffering of others to background music. The nation has always been submerged in identity politics, but some would rather keep their heads buried in the sand than confront the bitter reality. Or, as Slotkin suggested, some want the topic of identity to “go the way of the dodo.”
Not all identity politics serves the same end. For example, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to block The Fearless Fund’s grant program, “which award[ed] $20,000 to businesses that [were] at least 51% owned by Black women, among other requirements.” While this program was designed explicitly to help Black women, this was not an effort to cause harm to others but, instead, to mitigate discrimination they experience in the banking industry. On the contrary, racial segregation and discrimination throughout the Jim Crow era excluded Black people from much of public life. Far too often, “identity politics” are described as either “good” or “bad.” However, such basic descriptions are devoid of context. As a society, we should critically evaluate whether a policy is beneficial or harmful. If, however, the American public is conditioned to see “identity politics” as inherently toxic to our body politic, we will collectively fail to consider the actual impact of such policies.
Black Americans do not have the privilege to abandon identity politics, as they are negatively impacted by racism. Thus, the broader society must come to realize that threatening to condemn conversations about identity to extinction is not a neutral position but one intrinsically harmful to the black community and all marginalized groups. Despite anti-black racism being arguably the worst type of identity politics, some are far more concerned with shutting the door on the topic rather than engaging in good faith.
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author’s permission. Read more of Dr. Allison Gaines’ work on Medium.