Roots of Racial Inequality

Christopher A. Bracey on Glenn C. Loury’s “The Anatomy of Racial Inequality“:

ABSTRACT

Download article here [PDF]  “Thinking Race, Making Nation: Reviewing Glenn C. Loury, ‘The Anatomy of Racial Inequality”

Professor Glenn C. Loury’s “The Anatomy of Racial Inequality” is a thoroughgoing attempt to ascertain the root causes of racial inequality and provide insight into the thought process that causes us to view racial disparity with complacency and indifference. However, Loury’s project is not merely descriptive. His structural account of racial inequality provides the staging ground from which he launches a deep critique of prevailing views on American race relations. Racial inequity is not the product of some inherent deficiency in the minds and hearts of African Americans. Rather, it is a social pathology “deeply rooted in American history” – a pathology that “evolved in tandem with American political and economic institutions, and with cultural practices that supported and legitimated those institutions . . . that were often deeply biased against blacks.” Loury therefore rejects the conservative policy of indifference toward racial disparities, and declares emphatically that racial inequality is “an American tragedy [and] a national, not merely a communal disgrace.”

In a very real sense, Loury’s free and extended meditation on racial inequality and the prospects of racial reform provides us with an insightful theoretical and discursive structure through which we can engage the struggle for racial justice anew. In this review essay, I offer an extended examination and critique of the major arguments presented in the book. In the course of connecting Loury’s work with historic and contemporary literature on racial disparities in American life, I offer some thoughts on the impact his project may have upon the shape of American race relations to come.

 

 

Tracking Media Bias

Judy Gerstel at The Star:

Researcher Erika Falk documented what she sees as sexist bias against Hillary Clinton. “She wasn’t treated like the typical male candidate,” says the communications expert at Johns Hopkins University. Falk analyzed the first month of campaign coverage in the top six circulating American newspapers, including USA Today, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times.She found that Clinton: 
  • Was more likely than Obama to have her legislative title dropped and be referred to by her first name or by her gender. 
  • Was mentioned in just 65 per cent of the number of articles as Obama. Only nine stories mentioned Clinton without mentioning Obama; 38 stories mentioned Obama without Clinton. 
  • Had fewer paragraphs written about her than Obama did – 631 about her and 934 about him.
  • Was less likely to see her name in a headline than Obama: 59 stories had headlines with “Obama” to just 36 with “Clinton.” 

via Broadsides

Boycott CNN

I am so tired of listening to supposed pundits who work for Hillary Clinton’s campaign or Barack Obama’s campaign or who are running the Republican Party and so on.  Why are there no relatively non-partisan pundits?  I don’t want to hear anyone’s deliberately biased opinion – I know what they’re going to say well before they say it, they add nothing to political discourse, they have no new information to offer ETC.  They’re boring and unhelpful.  I’m not going to watch this junk anymore.  I was tipped over the edge into boycott by this news:

From cable news star to White House press secretary and back again: Tony Snow, who worked at the Fox News Channel for 10 years before serving as the Bush administration’s chief spokesman for 17 months, is moving to CNN to be a political contributor.

CNN announced Mr. Snow’s hire on Monday, concluding months of wooing by the channel’s executives. Mr. Snow joined Fox News as a television and radio host in 1996, where he worked until he was named White House press secretary in April 2006. He stepped down last September, following a recurrence of his cancer.   more here

New York Times Political Blog