Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectHere are all the answeres!
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=23178&mesg_id=23197
23197, Here are all the answeres!
Posted by guest, Thu Aug-03-00 10:47 AM
http://www.gladwell.com/1996_04_29_a_black.htm

this guy, Malcolm Gladwell, writes for the New Yorker and he effin rocks! (warning - print this out to read - otherwise it'll hurt your eyes)

April 29, 1996
PERSONAL HISTORY
Black Like Them
Through the lens of his own family's experience, the author explores why
West Indians and American blacks are perceived differently.


My cousin Rosie and her husband, Noel, live in a two-bedroom bungalow
on Argyle Avenue, in Uniondale, on the west end of Long Island. When they
came to America, twelve years ago, they lived in a basement apartment a
dozen or so blocks away, next to their church. At the time, they were both
taking classes at the New York Institute of Technology, which was right
nearby. But after they graduated, and Rosie got a job managing a fast-food
place and Noel got a job in asbestos removal, they managed to save a little
money and bought the house on Argyle Avenue.

From the outside, their home looks fairly plain. It's in a part of
Uniondale that has a lot of tract housing from just after the war, and most of
the houses are alike--squat and square, with aluminum siding, maybe a
dormer window in the attic, and a small patch of lawn out front. But there is a
beautiful park down the street, the public schools are supposed to be good,
and Rosie and Noel have built a new garage and renovated the basement.
Now that Noel has started his own business, as an environmental engineer,
he has his office down there--Suite 2B, it says on his stationery--and every
morning he puts on his tie and goes down the stairs to make calls and work
on the computer. If Noel's business takes off, Rosie says, she would like to
move to a bigger house, in Garden City, which is one town over. She says this
even though Garden City is mostly white. In fact, when she told one of her
girlfriends, a black American, about this idea, her friend said that she was
crazy--that Garden City was no place for a black person. But that is just the
point. Rosie and Noel are from Jamaica. They don't consider themselves black
at all.

This doesn't mean that my cousins haven't sometimes been lumped
together with American blacks. Noel had a job once removing asbestos at
Kennedy Airport, and his boss there called him "nigger" and cut his hours. But
Noel didn't take it personally. That boss, he says, didn't like women or Jews,
either, or people with college degrees--or even himself, for that matter.
Another time, Noel found out that a white guy working next to him in the
same job and with the same qualifications was making ten thousand dollars a
year more than he was. He quit the next day. Noel knows that racism is out
there. It's just that he doesn't quite understand--or accept--the categories on
which it depends.

To a West Indian, black is a literal description: you are black if your skin
is black. Noel's father, for example, is black. But his mother had a white
father, and she herself was fair-skinned and could pass. As for Rosie, her
mother and my mother, who are twins, thought of themselves while they
were growing up as "middle-class brown," which is to say that they are about
the same shade as Colin Powell. That's because our maternal grandfather was
part Jewish, in addition to all kinds of other things, and Grandma, though she
was a good deal darker than he was, had enough Scottish blood in her to
have been born with straight hair. Rosie's mother married another brown
Jamaican, and that makes Rosie a light chocolate. As for my mother, she
married an Englishman, making everything that much more complicated,
since by the racial categories of my own heritage I am one thing and by the
racial categories of America I am another. Once, when Rosie and Noel came
to visit me while I was living in Washington, D.C., Noel asked me to show him
"where the black people lived," and I was confused for a moment until I
realized that he was using "black" in the American sense, and so was asking
in the same way that someone visiting Manhattan might ask where Chinatown
was. That the people he wanted to see were in many cases racially
indistinguishable from him didn't matter. The facts of his genealogy, of his
nationality, of his status as an immigrant made him, in his own eyes,
different.

This question of who West Indians are and how they define themselves
may seem trivial, like racial hairsplitting. But it is not trivial. In the past
twenty years, the number of West Indians in America has exploded. There are
now half a million in the New York area alone and, despite their recent arrival,
they make substantially more money than American blacks. They live in
better neighborhoods. Their families are stronger. In the New York area, in
fact, West Indians fare about as well as Chinese and Korean immigrants. That
is why the Caribbean invasion and the issue of West Indian identity have
become such controversial issues. What does it say about the nature of
racism that another group of blacks, who have the same legacy of slavery as
their American counterparts and are physically indistinguishable from them,
can come here and succeed as well as the Chinese and the Koreans do? Is
overcoming racism as simple as doing what Noel does, which is to dismiss it,
to hold himself above it, to brave it and move on?

These are difficult questions, not merely for what they imply about
American blacks but for the ways in which they appear to contradict
conventional views of what prejudice is. Racism, after all, is supposed to be
indiscriminate. For example, sociologists have observed that the more blacks
there are in a community the more negative the whites' attitudes will be.
Blacks in Denver have a far easier time than blacks in, say, Cleveland.
Lynchings in the South at the turn of this century, to give another example,
were far more common in counties where there was a large black population
than in areas where whites were in the majority. Prejudice is the crudest of
weapons, a reaction against blacks in the aggregate that grows as the
perception of black threat grows. If that is the case, however, the addition of
hundreds of thousands of new black immigrants to the New York area should
have made things worse for people like Rosie and Noel, not better. And, if
racism is so indiscriminate in its application, why is one group of blacks
flourishing and the other not?

The implication of West Indian success is that racism does not really
exist at all--at least, not in the form that we have assumed it does. The
implication is that the key factor in understanding racial prejudice is not the
behavior and attitudes of whites but the behavior and attitudes of blacks--not
white discrimination but black culture. It implies that when the conservatives
in Congress say the responsibility for ending urban poverty lies not with
collective action but with the poor themselves they are right.

I think of this sometimes when I go with Rosie and Noel to their church,
which is in Hempstead, just a mile away. It was once a white church, but in
the past decade or so it has been taken over by immigrants from the
Caribbean. They have so swelled its membership that the church has bought
much of the surrounding property and is about to add a hundred seats to its
sanctuary. The pastor, though, is white, and when the band up front is
playing and the congregation is in full West Indian form the pastor sometimes
seems out of place, as if he cannot move in time with the music. I always
wonder how long the white minister at Rosie and Noel's church will
last--whether there won't be some kind of groundswell among the
congregation to replace him with one of their own. But Noel tells me the issue
has never really come up. Noel says, in fact, that he's happier with a white
minister, for the same reasons that he's happy with his neighborhood, where
the people across the way are Polish and another neighbor is Hispanic and
still another is a black American. He doesn't want to be shut off from
everyone else, isolated within the narrow confines of his race. He wants to be
part of the world, and when he says these things it is awfully tempting to
credit that attitude with what he and Rosie have accomplished.

Is this confidence, this optimism, this equanimity all that separates the
poorest of American blacks from a house on Argyle Avenue?

2.

In 1994, Philip Kasinitz, a sociologist at Manhattan's Hunter College, and
Jan Rosenberg, who teaches at Long Island University, conducted a study of
the Red Hook area of Brooklyn, a neighborhood of around thirteen or fourteen
thousand which lies between the waterfront and the Gowanus Expressway.
Red Hook has a large public-housing project at its center, and around the
project, in the streets that line the waterfront, are several hundred thriving
blue-collar businesses--warehouses, shipping companies, small
manufacturers, and contractors. The object of the study was to resolve what
Kasinitz and Rosenberg saw as the paradox of Red Hook: despite Red Hook's
seemingly fortuitous conjunction of unskilled labor and blue-collar jobs, very
few of the Puerto Ricans and African-Americans from the neighborhood ever
found work in the bustling economy of their own back yard.

After dozens of interviews with local employers, the two researchers
uncovered a persistent pattern of what they call positive discrimination. It
was not that the employers did not like blacks and Hispanics. It was that they
had developed an elaborate mechanism for distinguishing between those they
felt were "good" blacks and those they felt were "bad" blacks, between those
they judged to be "good" Hispanics and those they considered "bad"
Hispanics. "Good" meant that you came from outside the neighborhood,
because employers identified locals with the crime and dissipation they saw
on the streets around them. "Good" also meant that you were an immigrant,
because employers felt that being an immigrant implied a loyalty and a
willingness to work and learn not found among the native-born. In Red Hook,
the good Hispanics are Mexican and South American, not Puerto Rican. And
the good blacks are West Indian.

The Harvard sociologist Mary C. Waters conducted a similar study, in
1993, which looked at a food-service company in Manhattan where West
Indian workers have steadily displaced African-Americans in the past few
years. The transcripts of her interviews with the company managers make
fascinating reading, providing an intimate view of the perceptions that govern
the urban workplace. Listen to one forty-year-old white male manager on the
subject of West Indians:

They tend more to shy away from doing all of the illegal things because
they have such strict rules down in their countries and jails. And they're
nothing like here. So like, they're like really paranoid to do something
wrong. They seem to be very, very self-conscious of it. No matter what
they have to do, if they have to try and work three jobs, they do. They
won't go into drugs or anything like that.

Or listen to this, from a fifty-three-year-old white female manager:

I work closely with this one girl who's from Trinidad. And she told me
when she first came here to live with her sister and cousin, she had two
children. And she said I'm here four years and we've reached our goals.
And what was your goal? For her two children to each have their own
bedroom. Now she has a three bedroom apartment and she said that's
one of the goals she was shooting for. . . . If that was an American,
they would say, I reached my goal. I bought a Cadillac.

This idea of the West Indian as a kind of superior black is not a new
one. When the first wave of Caribbean immigrants came to New York and
Boston, in the early nineteen-hundreds, other blacks dubbed them
Jewmaicans, in derisive reference to the emphasis they placed on hard work
and education. In the nineteen-eighties, the economist Thomas Sowell gave
the idea a serious intellectual imprimatur by arguing that the West Indian
advantage was a historical legacy of Caribbean slave culture. According to
Sowell, in the American South slaveowners tended to hire managers who
were married, in order to limit the problems created by sexual relations
between overseers and slave women. But the West Indies were a hardship
post, without a large and settled white population. There the overseers
tended to be bachelors, and, with white women scarce, there was far more
commingling of the races. The resulting large group of coloreds soon formed a
kind of proto-middle class, performing various kinds of skilled and
sophisticated tasks that there were not enough whites around to do, as there
were in the American South. They were carpenters, masons, plumbers, and
small businessmen, many years in advance of their American counterparts,
developing skills that required education and initiative.

My mother and Rosie's mother came from this colored class. Their
parents were schoolteachers in a tiny village buried in the hills of central
Jamaica. My grandmother's and grandfather's salaries combined put them, at
best, on the lower rungs of the middle class. But their expectations went well
beyond that. In my grandfather's library were Dickens and Maupassant. My
mother and her sister were pushed to win scholarships to a proper English-
style boarding school at the other end of the island; and later, when my
mother graduated, it was taken for granted that she would attend university
in England, even though the cost of tuition and passage meant that my
grandmother had to borrow a small fortune from the Chinese grocer down the
road.

My grandparents had ambitions for their children, but it was a special
kind of ambition, born of a certainty that American blacks did not have--that
their values were the same as those of society as a whole, and that hard work
and talent could actually be rewarded. In my mother's first year at boarding
school, she looked up "Negro" in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopędia
Britannica. "In certain . . . characteristics . . . the negro would appear to
stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man," she read. And the
entry continued:

The mental constitution of the negro is very similar to that of a child,
normally good-natured and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion
and passion during which he is capable of performing acts of singular
atrocity, impressionable, vain, but often exhibiting in the capacity of
servant a dog-like fidelity which has stood the supreme test.

All black people of my mother's generation--and of generations before
and since--have necessarily faced a moment like this, when they are
confronted for the first time with the allegation of their inferiority. But, at
least in my mother's case, her school was integrated, and that meant she
knew black girls who were more intelligent than white girls, and she knew
how she measured against the world around her. At least she lived in a
country that had blacks and browns in every position of authority, so her
personal experience gave the lie to what she read in the encyclopedia. This, I
think, is what Noel means when he says that he cannot quite appreciate what
it is that weighs black Americans down, because he encountered the
debilitating effects of racism late, when he was much stronger. He came of
age in a country where he belonged to the majority.

When I was growing up, my mother sometimes read to my brothers and
me from the work of Louise Bennett, the great Jamaican poet of my mother's
generation. The poem I remember best is about two women--one black and
one white--in a hair salon, the black woman getting her hair straightened
and, next to her, the white woman getting her hair curled:

same time me mind start 'tink
'bout me and de white woman
how me tek out me natural perm
and she put in false one

There is no anger or resentment here, only irony and playfulness--the
two races captured in a shared moment of absurdity. Then comes the twist.
The black woman is paying less to look white than the white woman is to look
black:

de two a we da tek a risk
what rain or shine will bring
but fe har risk is t're poun'
fi me onle five shillin'

In the nineteen-twenties, the garment trade in New York was first
integrated by West Indian women, because, the legend goes, they would see
the sign on the door saying "No blacks need apply" and simply walk on in.
When I look back on Bennett's poem, I think I understand how they found the
courage to do that.

3.

It is tempting to use the West Indian story as evidence that
discrimination doesn't really exist--as proof that the only thing inner-city
African-Americans have to do to be welcomed as warmly as West Indians in
places like Red Hook is to make the necessary cultural adjustments. If West
Indians are different, as they clearly are, then it is easy to imagine that those
differences are the reason for their success--that their refusal to be bowed is
what lets them walk on by the signs that prohibit them or move to
neighborhoods that black Americans would shy away from. It also seems hard
to see how the West Indian story is in any way consistent with the idea of
racism as an indiscriminate, pernicious threat aimed at all black people.

But here is where things become more difficult, and where what seems
obvious about West Indian achievement turns out not to be obvious at all.
One of the striking things in the Red Hook study, for example, is the
emphasis that the employers appeared to place on hiring outsiders--Irish or
Russian or Mexican or West Indian immigrants from places far from Red Hook.
The reason for this was not, the researchers argue, that the employers had
any great familiarity with the cultures of those immigrants. They had none,
and that was the point. They were drawn to the unfamiliar because what was
familiar to them--the projects of Red Hook--was anathema. The Columbia
University anthropologist Katherine Newman makes the same observation in a
recent study of two fast-food restaurants in Harlem. She compared the
hundreds of people who applied for jobs at those restaurants with the few
people who were actually hired, and found, among other things, that how far
an applicant lived from the job site made a huge difference. Of those
applicants who lived less than two miles from the restaurant, ten per cent
were hired. Of those who lived more than two miles from the restaurant,
nearly forty per cent were hired. As Newman puts it, employers preferred the
ghetto they didn't know to the ghetto they did.

Neither study describes a workplace where individual attitudes make a
big difference, or where the clunky and impersonal prejudices that
characterize traditional racism have been discarded. They sound like places
where old-style racism and appreciation of immigrant values are somehow
bound up together. Listen to another white manager who was interviewed by
Mary Waters:

Island blacks who come over, they're immigrant. They may not have
such a good life where they are so they gonna try to strive to better
themselves and I think there's a lot of American blacks out there who feel we
owe them. And enough is enough already. You know, this is something that
happened to their ancestors, not now. I mean, we've done so much for the
black people in America now that it's time that they got off their butts.

Here, then, are the two competing ideas about racism side by side: the
manager issues a blanket condemnation of American blacks even as he holds
West Indians up as a cultural ideal. The example of West Indians as "good"
blacks makes the old blanket prejudice against American blacks all the easier
to express. The manager can tell black Americans to get off their butts
without fear of sounding, in his own ears, like a racist, because he has
simultaneously celebrated island blacks for their work ethic. The success of
West Indians is not proof that discrimination against American blacks does not
exist. Rather, it is the means by which discrimination against American blacks
is given one last, vicious twist: I am not so shallow as to despise you for the
color of your skin, because I have found people your color that I like. Now I
can despise you for who you are.

This is racism's newest mutation--multicultural racism, where one
ethnic group can be played off against another. But it is wrong to call West
Indians the victors in this competition, in anything but the narrowest sense.
In American history, immigrants have always profited from assimilation: as
they have adopted the language and customs of this country, they have sped
their passage into the mainstream. The new racism means that West Indians
are the first group of people for whom that has not been true. Their
advantage depends on their remaining outsiders, on remaining unfamiliar, on
being distinct by custom, culture, and language from the American blacks
they would otherwise resemble. There is already some evidence that the
considerable economic and social advantages that West Indians hold over
American blacks begin to dissipate by the second generation, when the island
accent has faded, and those in positions of power who draw distinctions
between good blacks and bad blacks begin to lump West Indians with
everyone else. For West Indians, assimilation is tantamount to suicide. This is
a cruel fate for any immigrant group, but it is especially so for West Indians,
whose history and literature are already redolent with the themes of
dispossession and loss, with the long search for identity and belonging. In the
nineteen-twenties, Marcus Garvey sought community in the idea of Africa.
Bob Marley, the Jamaican reggae singer, yearned for Zion. In "Rites of
Passage" the Barbadian poet Edward Kamau Brathwaite writes:

Where, then, is the nigger's
home?
In Paris Brixton Kingston
Rome?
Here?
Or in Heaven?

America might have been home. But it is not: not Red Hook, anyway;
not Harlem; not even Argyle Avenue.

There is also no small measure of guilt here, for West Indians cannot
escape the fact that their success has come, to some extent, at the expense
of American blacks, and that as they have noisily differentiated themselves
from African-Americans--promoting the stereotype of themselves as the good
blacks--they have made it easier for whites to join in. It does not help
matters that the same kinds of distinctions between good and bad blacks
which govern the immigrant experience here have always lurked just below
the surface of life in the West Indies as well. It was the infusion of white
blood that gave the colored class its status in the Caribbean, and the
members of this class have never forgotten that, nor have they failed, in a
thousand subtle ways, to distance themselves from those around them who
experienced a darker and less privileged past.

In my mother's house, in Harewood, the family often passed around a
pencilled drawing of two of my great-grandparents; she was part Jewish, and
he was part Scottish. The other side--the African side--was never mentioned.
My grandmother was the ringleader in this. She prized my grandfather's light
skin, but she also suffered as a result of this standard. "She's nice, you know,
but she's too dark," her mother-in-law would say of her. The most telling
story of all, though, is the story of one of my mother's relatives, whom I'll call
Aunt Joan, who was as fair as my great-grandmother was. Aunt Joan married
what in Jamaica is called an Injun--a man with a dark complexion that is
redeemed from pure Africanness by straight, fine black hair. She had two
daughters by him--handsome girls with dark complexions. But he died young,
and one day, while she was travelling on a train to visit her daughter, she
met and took an interest in a light-skinned man in the same railway car.
What happened next is something that Aunt Joan told only my mother, years
later, with the greatest of shame. When she got off the train, she walked right
by her daughter, disowning her own flesh and blood, because she did not
want a man so light-skinned and desirable to know that she had borne a
daughter so dark.

My mother, in the nineteen-sixties, wrote a book about her experiences.
It was entitled "Brown Face, Big Master," the brown face referring to her and
the big master, in the Jamaican dialect, referring to God. Sons, of course, are
hardly objective on the achievements of their mothers, but there is one
passage in the book that I find unforgettable, because it is such an eloquent
testimony to the moral precariousness of the Jamaican colored class--to the
mixture of confusion and guilt that attends its position as beneficiary of
racism's distinctions. The passage describes a time just after my mother and
father were married, when they were living in London and my eldest brother
was still a baby. They were looking for an apartment, and after a long search
my father found one in a London suburb. On the day after they moved in,
however, the landlady ordered them out. "You didn't tell me your wife was
colored," she told my father, in a rage.

In her book my mother describes her long struggle to make sense of
this humiliation, to reconcile her experience with her faith. In the end, she
was forced to acknowledge that anger was not an option--that as a Jamaican
"middle-class brown," and a descendant of Aunt Joan, she could hardly
reproach another for the impulse to divide good black from bad black:

I complained to God in so many words: "Here I was, the wounded
representative of the negro race in our struggle to be accounted free and
equal with the dominating whites!" And God was amused; my prayer did not
ring true with Him. I would try again. And then God said, "Have you not
done the same thing? Remember this one and that one, people whom you have
slighted or avoided or treated less considerately than others because they
were different superficially, and you were ashamed to be identified with
them. Have you not been glad that you are not more colored than you are?
Grateful that you are not black?" My anger and hate against the landlady
melted. I was no better than she was, nor worse for that matter. . . . We
were both guilty of the sin of self-regard, the pride and the exclusiveness
by which we cut some people off from ourselves.

4.

I grew up in Canada, in a little farming town an hour and a half outside
of Toronto. My father teaches mathematics at a nearby university, and my
mother is a therapist. For many years, she was the only black person in town,
but I cannot remember wondering or worrying, or even thinking, about this
fact. Back then, color meant only good things. It meant my cousins in
Jamaica. It meant the graduate students from Africa and India my father
would bring home from the university. My own color was not something I ever
thought much about, either, because it seemed such a stray fact. Blacks knew
what I was. They could discern the hint of Africa beneath my fair skin. But it
was a kind of secret--something that they would ask me about quietly when
no one else was around. ("Where you from?" an older black man once asked
me. "Ontario," I said, not thinking. "No," he replied. "Where you from?" And
then I understood and told him, and he nodded as if he had already known.
"We was speculatin' about your heritage," he said.) But whites never guessed,
and even after I informed them it never seemed to make a difference. Why
would it? In a town that is ninety-nine per cent white, one modest alleged
splash of color hardly amounts to a threat.

But things changed when I left for Toronto to attend college. This was
during the early nineteen-eighties, when West Indians were immigrating to
Canada in droves, and Toronto had become second only to New York as the
Jamaican expatriates' capital in North America. At school, in the dining hall, I
was served by Jamaicans. The infamous Jane-Finch projects, in northern
Toronto, were considered the Jamaican projects. The drug trade then taking
off was said to be the Jamaican drug trade. In the popular imagination,
Jamaicans were--and are--welfare queens and gun-toting gangsters and
dissolute youths. In Ontario, blacks accused of crimes are released by the
police eighteen per cent of the time; whites are released twenty-nine per cent
of the time. In drug-trafficking and importing cases, blacks are twenty-seven
times as likely as whites to be jailed before their trial takes place, and twenty
times as likely to be imprisoned on drug-possession charges.

After I had moved to the United States, I puzzled over this seeming
contradiction--how West Indians celebrated in New York for their industry and
drive could represent, just five hundred miles northwest, crime and
dissipation. Didn't Torontonians see what was special and different in West
Indian culture? But that was a naļve question. The West Indians were the first
significant brush with blackness that white, smug, comfortable Torontonians
had ever had. They had no bad blacks to contrast with the newcomers, no
African-Americans to serve as a safety valve for their prejudices, no way to
perform America's crude racial triage.

Not long ago, I sat in a coffee shop with someone I knew vaguely from
college, who, like me, had moved to New York from Toronto. He began to
speak of the threat that he felt Toronto now faced. It was the Jamaicans, he
said. They were a bad seed. He was, of course, oblivious of my background. I
said nothing, though, and he launched into a long explanation of how, in
slave times, Jamaica was the island where all the most troublesome and
obstreperous slaves were sent, and how that accounted for their particularly
nasty disposition today.

I have told that story many times since, usually as a joke, because it
was funny in an appalling way--particularly when I informed him much, much
later that my mother was Jamaican. I tell the story that way because
otherwise it is too painful. There must be people in Toronto just like Rosie and
Noel, with the same attitudes and aspirations, who want to live in a
neighborhood as nice as Argyle Avenue, who want to build a new garage and
renovate their basement and set up their own business downstairs. But it is
not completely up to them, is it? What has happened to Jamaicans in Toronto
is proof that what has happened to Jamaicans here is not the end of racism,
or even the beginning of the end of racism, but an accident of history and
geography. In America, there is someone else to despise. In Canada, there is
not. In the new racism, as in the old, somebody always has to be the nigger.


copyright 1996 Malcolm Gladwell
Home Books Articles







April 29, 1996
PERSONAL HISTORY
Black Like Them
Through the lens of his own family's experience, the author explores why
West Indians and American blacks are perceived differently.


My cousin Rosie and her husband, Noel, live in a two-bedroom bungalow
on Argyle Avenue, in Uniondale, on the west end of Long Island. When they
came to America, twelve years ago, they lived in a basement apartment a
dozen or so blocks away, next to their church. At the time, they were both
taking classes at the New York Institute of Technology, which was right
nearby. But after they graduated, and Rosie got a job managing a fast-food
place and Noel got a job in asbestos removal, they managed to save a little
money and bought the house on Argyle Avenue.

From the outside, their home looks fairly plain. It's in a part of
Uniondale that has a lot of tract housing from just after the war, and most of
the houses are alike--squat and square, with aluminum siding, maybe a
dormer window in the attic, and a small patch of lawn out front. But there is a
beautiful park down the street, the public schools are supposed to be good,
and Rosie and Noel have built a new garage and renovated the basement.
Now that Noel has started his own business, as an environmental engineer,
he has his office down there--Suite 2B, it says on his stationery--and every
morning he puts on his tie and goes down the stairs to make calls and work
on the computer. If Noel's business takes off, Rosie says, she would like to
move to a bigger house, in Garden City, which is one town over. She says this
even though Garden City is mostly white. In fact, when she told one of her
girlfriends, a black American, about this idea, her friend said that she was
crazy--that Garden City was no place for a black person. But that is just the
point. Rosie and Noel are from Jamaica. They don't consider themselves black
at all.

This doesn't mean that my cousins haven't sometimes been lumped
together with American blacks. Noel had a job once removing asbestos at
Kennedy Airport, and his boss there called him "nigger" and cut his hours. But
Noel didn't take it personally. That boss, he says, didn't like women or Jews,
either, or people with college degrees--or even himself, for that matter.
Another time, Noel found out that a white guy working next to him in the
same job and with the same qualifications was making ten thousand dollars a
year more than he was. He quit the next day. Noel knows that racism is out
there. It's just that he doesn't quite understand--or accept--the categories on
which it depends.

To a West Indian, black is a literal description: you are black if your skin
is black. Noel's father, for example, is black. But his mother had a white
father, and she herself was fair-skinned and could pass. As for Rosie, her
mother and my mother, who are twins, thought of themselves while they
were growing up as "middle-class brown," which is to say that they are about
the same shade as Colin Powell. That's because our maternal grandfather was
part Jewish, in addition to all kinds of other things, and Grandma, though she
was a good deal darker than he was, had enough Scottish blood in her to
have been born with straight hair. Rosie's mother married another brown
Jamaican, and that makes Rosie a light chocolate. As for my mother, she
married an Englishman, making everything that much more complicated,
since by the racial categories of my own heritage I am one thing and by the
racial categories of America I am another. Once, when Rosie and Noel came
to visit me while I was living in Washington, D.C., Noel asked me to show him
"where the black people lived," and I was confused for a moment until I
realized that he was using "black" in the American sense, and so was asking
in the same way that someone visiting Manhattan might ask where Chinatown
was. That the people he wanted to see were in many cases racially
indistinguishable from him didn't matter. The facts of his genealogy, of his
nationality, of his status as an immigrant made him, in his own eyes,
different.

This question of who West Indians are and how they define themselves
may seem trivial, like racial hairsplitting. But it is not trivial. In the past
twenty years, the number of West Indians in America has exploded. There are
now half a million in the New York area alone and, despite their recent arrival,
they make substantially more money than American blacks. They live in
better neighborhoods. Their families are stronger. In the New York area, in
fact, West Indians fare about as well as Chinese and Korean immigrants. That
is why the Caribbean invasion and the issue of West Indian identity have
become such controversial issues. What does it say about the nature of
racism that another group of blacks, who have the same legacy of slavery as
their American counterparts and are physically indistinguishable from them,
can come here and succeed as well as the Chinese and the Koreans do? Is
overcoming racism as simple as doing what Noel does, which is to dismiss it,
to hold himself above it, to brave it and move on?

These are difficult questions, not merely for what they imply about
American blacks but for the ways in which they appear to contradict
conventional views of what prejudice is. Racism, after all, is supposed to be
indiscriminate. For example, sociologists have observed that the more blacks
there are in a community the more negative the whites' attitudes will be.
Blacks in Denver have a far easier time than blacks in, say, Cleveland.
Lynchings in the South at the turn of this century, to give another example,
were far more common in counties where there was a large black population
than in areas where whites were in the majority. Prejudice is the crudest of
weapons, a reaction against blacks in the aggregate that grows as the
perception of black threat grows. If that is the case, however, the addition of
hundreds of thousands of new black immigrants to the New York area should
have made things worse for people like Rosie and Noel, not better. And, if
racism is so indiscriminate in its application, why is one group of blacks
flourishing and the other not?

The implication of West Indian success is that racism does not really
exist at all--at least, not in the form that we have assumed it does. The
implication is that the key factor in understanding racial prejudice is not the
behavior and attitudes of whites but the behavior and attitudes of blacks--not
white discrimination but black culture. It implies that when the conservatives
in Congress say the responsibility for ending urban poverty lies not with
collective action but with the poor themselves they are right.

I think of this sometimes when I go with Rosie and Noel to their church,
which is in Hempstead, just a mile away. It was once a white church, but in
the past decade or so it has been taken over by immigrants from the
Caribbean. They have so swelled its membership that the church has bought
much of the surrounding property and is about to add a hundred seats to its
sanctuary. The pastor, though, is white, and when the band up front is
playing and the congregation is in full West Indian form the pastor sometimes
seems out of place, as if he cannot move in time with the music. I always
wonder how long the white minister at Rosie and Noel's church will
last--whether there won't be some kind of groundswell among the
congregation to replace him with one of their own. But Noel tells me the issue
has never really come up. Noel says, in fact, that he's happier with a white
minister, for the same reasons that he's happy with his neighborhood, where
the people across the way are Polish and another neighbor is Hispanic and
still another is a black American. He doesn't want to be shut off from
everyone else, isolated within the narrow confines of his race. He wants to be
part of the world, and when he says these things it is awfully tempting to
credit that attitude with what he and Rosie have accomplished.

Is this confidence, this optimism, this equanimity all that separates the
poorest of American blacks from a house on Argyle Avenue?

2.

In 1994, Philip Kasinitz, a sociologist at Manhattan's Hunter College, and
Jan Rosenberg, who teaches at Long Island University, conducted a study of
the Red Hook area of Brooklyn, a neighborhood of around thirteen or fourteen
thousand which lies between the waterfront and the Gowanus Expressway.
Red Hook has a large public-housing project at its center, and around the
project, in the streets that line the waterfront, are several hundred thriving
blue-collar businesses--warehouses, shipping companies, small
manufacturers, and contractors. The object of the study was to resolve what
Kasinitz and Rosenberg saw as the paradox of Red Hook: despite Red Hook's
seemingly fortuitous conjunction of unskilled labor and blue-collar jobs, very
few of the Puerto Ricans and African-Americans from the neighborhood ever
found work in the bustling economy of their own back yard.

After dozens of interviews with local employers, the two researchers
uncovered a persistent pattern of what they call positive discrimination. It
was not that the employers did not like blacks and Hispanics. It was that they
had developed an elaborate mechanism for distinguishing between those they
felt were "good" blacks and those they felt were "bad" blacks, between those
they judged to be "good" Hispanics and those they considered "bad"
Hispanics. "Good" meant that you came from outside the neighborhood,
because employers identified locals with the crime and dissipation they saw
on the streets around them. "Good" also meant that you were an immigrant,
because employers felt that being an immigrant implied a loyalty and a
willingness to work and learn not found among the native-born. In Red Hook,
the good Hispanics are Mexican and South American, not Puerto Rican. And
the good blacks are West Indian.

The Harvard sociologist Mary C. Waters conducted a similar study, in
1993, which looked at a food-service company in Manhattan where West
Indian workers have steadily displaced African-Americans in the past few
years. The transcripts of her interviews with the company managers make
fascinating reading, providing an intimate view of the perceptions that govern
the urban workplace. Listen to one forty-year-old white male manager on the
subject of West Indians:

They tend more to shy away from doing all of the illegal things because
they have such strict rules down in their countries and jails. And they're
nothing like here. So like, they're like really paranoid to do something
wrong. They seem to be very, very self-conscious of it. No matter what
they have to do, if they have to try and work three jobs, they do. They
won't go into drugs or anything like that.

Or listen to this, from a fifty-three-year-old white female manager:

I work closely with this one girl who's from Trinidad. And she told me
when she first came here to live with her sister and cousin, she had two
children. And she said I'm here four years and we've reached our goals.
And what was your goal? For her two children to each have their own
bedroom. Now she has a three bedroom apartment and she said that's
one of the goals she was shooting for. . . . If that was an American,
they would say, I reached my goal. I bought a Cadillac.

This idea of the West Indian as a kind of superior black is not a new
one. When the first wave of Caribbean immigrants came to New York and
Boston, in the early nineteen-hundreds, other blacks dubbed them
Jewmaicans, in derisive reference to the emphasis they placed on hard work
and education. In the nineteen-eighties, the economist Thomas Sowell gave
the idea a serious intellectual imprimatur by arguing that the West Indian
advantage was a historical legacy of Caribbean slave culture. According to
Sowell, in the American South slaveowners tended to hire managers who
were married, in order to limit the problems created by sexual relations
between overseers and slave women. But the West Indies were a hardship
post, without a large and settled white population. There the overseers
tended to be bachelors, and, with white women scarce, there was far more
commingling of the races. The resulting large group of coloreds soon formed a
kind of proto-middle class, performing various kinds of skilled and
sophisticated tasks that there were not enough whites around to do, as there
were in the American South. They were carpenters, masons, plumbers, and
small businessmen, many years in advance of their American counterparts,
developing skills that required education and initiative.

My mother and Rosie's mother came from this colored class. Their
parents were schoolteachers in a tiny village buried in the hills of central
Jamaica. My grandmother's and grandfather's salaries combined put them, at
best, on the lower rungs of the middle class. But their expectations went well
beyond that. In my grandfather's library were Dickens and Maupassant. My
mother and her sister were pushed to win scholarships to a proper English-
style boarding school at the other end of the island; and later, when my
mother graduated, it was taken for granted that she would attend university
in England, even though the cost of tuition and passage meant that my
grandmother had to borrow a small fortune from the Chinese grocer down the
road.

My grandparents had ambitions for their children, but it was a special
kind of ambition, born of a certainty that American blacks did not have--that
their values were the same as those of society as a whole, and that hard work
and talent could actually be rewarded. In my mother's first year at boarding
school, she looked up "Negro" in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopędia
Britannica. "In certain . . . characteristics . . . the negro would appear to
stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man," she read. And the
entry continued:

The mental constitution of the negro is very similar to that of a child,
normally good-natured and cheerful, but subject to sudden fits of emotion
and passion during which he is capable of performing acts of singular
atrocity, impressionable, vain, but often exhibiting in the capacity of
servant a dog-like fidelity which has stood the supreme test.

All black people of my mother's generation--and of generations before
and since--have necessarily faced a moment like this, when they are
confronted for the first time with the allegation of their inferiority. But, at
least in my mother's case, her school was integrated, and that meant she
knew black girls who were more intelligent than white girls, and she knew
how she measured against the world around her. At least she lived in a
country that had blacks and browns in every position of authority, so her
personal experience gave the lie to what she read in the encyclopedia. This, I
think, is what Noel means when he says that he cannot quite appreciate what
it is that weighs black Americans down, because he encountered the
debilitating effects of racism late, when he was much stronger. He came of
age in a country where he belonged to the majority.

When I was growing up, my mother sometimes read to my brothers and
me from the work of Louise Bennett, the great Jamaican poet of my mother's
generation. The poem I remember best is about two women--one black and
one white--in a hair salon, the black woman getting her hair straightened
and, next to her, the white woman getting her hair curled:

same time me mind start 'tink
'bout me and de white woman
how me tek out me natural perm
and she put in false one

There is no anger or resentment here, only irony and playfulness--the
two races captured in a shared moment of absurdity. Then comes the twist.
The black woman is paying less to look white than the white woman is to look
black:

de two a we da tek a risk
what rain or shine will bring
but fe har risk is t're poun'
fi me onle five shillin'

In the nineteen-twenties, the garment trade in New York was first
integrated by West Indian women, because, the legend goes, they would see
the sign on the door saying "No blacks need apply" and simply walk on in.
When I look back on Bennett's poem, I think I understand how they found the
courage to do that.

3.

It is tempting to use the West Indian story as evidence that
discrimination doesn't really exist--as proof that the only thing inner-city
African-Americans have to do to be welcomed as warmly as West Indians in
places like Red Hook is to make the necessary cultural adjustments. If West
Indians are different, as they clearly are, then it is easy to imagine that those
differences are the reason for their success--that their refusal to be bowed is
what lets them walk on by the signs that prohibit them or move to
neighborhoods that black Americans would shy away from. It also seems hard
to see how the West Indian story is in any way consistent with the idea of
racism as an indiscriminate, pernicious threat aimed at all black people.

But here is where things become more difficult, and where what seems
obvious about West Indian achievement turns out not to be obvious at all.
One of the striking things in the Red Hook study, for example, is the
emphasis that the employers appeared to place on hiring outsiders--Irish or
Russian or Mexican or West Indian immigrants from places far from Red Hook.
The reason for this was not, the researchers argue, that the employers had
any great familiarity with the cultures of those immigrants. They had none,
and that was the point. They were drawn to the unfamiliar because what was
familiar to them--the projects of Red Hook--was anathema. The Columbia
University anthropologist Katherine Newman makes the same observation in a
recent study of two fast-food restaurants in Harlem. She compared the
hundreds of people who applied for jobs at those restaurants with the few
people who were actually hired, and found, among other things, that how far
an applicant lived from the job site made a huge difference. Of those
applicants who lived less than two miles from the restaurant, ten per cent
were hired. Of those who lived more than two miles from the restaurant,
nearly forty per cent were hired. As Newman puts it, employers preferred the
ghetto they didn't know to the ghetto they did.

Neither study describes a workplace where individual attitudes make a
big difference, or where the clunky and impersonal prejudices that
characterize traditional racism have been discarded. They sound like places
where old-style racism and appreciation of immigrant values are somehow
bound up together. Listen to another white manager who was interviewed by
Mary Waters:

Island blacks who come over, they're immigrant. They may not have
such a good life where they are so they gonna try to strive to better
themselves and I think there's a lot of American blacks out there who feel we
owe them. And enough is enough already. You know, this is something that
happened to their ancestors, not now. I mean, we've done so much for the
black people in America now that it's time that they got off their butts.

Here, then, are the two competing ideas about racism side by side: the
manager issues a blanket condemnation of American blacks even as he holds
West Indians up as a cultural ideal. The example of West Indians as "good"
blacks makes the old blanket prejudice against American blacks all the easier
to express. The manager can tell black Americans to get off their butts
without fear of sounding, in his own ears, like a racist, because he has
simultaneously celebrated island blacks for their work ethic. The success of
West Indians is not proof that discrimination against American blacks does not
exist. Rather, it is the means by which discrimination against American blacks
is given one last, vicious twist: I am not so shallow as to despise you for the
color of your skin, because I have found people your color that I like. Now I
can despise you for who you are.

This is racism's newest mutation--multicultural racism, where one
ethnic group can be played off against another. But it is wrong to call West
Indians the victors in this competition, in anything but the narrowest sense.
In American history, immigrants have always profited from assimilation: as
they have adopted the language and customs of this country, they have sped
their passage into the mainstream. The new racism means that West Indians
are the first group of people for whom that has not been true. Their
advantage depends on their remaining outsiders, on remaining unfamiliar, on
being distinct by custom, culture, and language from the American blacks
they would otherwise resemble. There is already some evidence that the
considerable economic and social advantages that West Indians hold over
American blacks begin to dissipate by the second generation, when the island
accent has faded, and those in positions of power who draw distinctions
between good blacks and bad blacks begin to lump West Indians with
everyone else. For West Indians, assimilation is tantamount to suicide. This is
a cruel fate for any immigrant group, but it is especially so for West Indians,
whose history and literature are already redolent with the themes of
dispossession and loss, with the long search for identity and belonging. In the
nineteen-twenties, Marcus Garvey sought community in the idea of Africa.
Bob Marley, the Jamaican reggae singer, yearned for Zion. In "Rites of
Passage" the Barbadian poet Edward Kamau Brathwaite writes:

Where, then, is the nigger's
home?
In Paris Brixton Kingston
Rome?
Here?
Or in Heaven?

America might have been home. But it is not: not Red Hook, anyway;
not Harlem; not even Argyle Avenue.

There is also no small measure of guilt here, for West Indians cannot
escape the fact that their success has come, to some extent, at the expense
of American blacks, and that as they have noisily differentiated themselves
from African-Americans--promoting the stereotype of themselves as the good
blacks--they have made it easier for whites to join in. It does not help
matters that the same kinds of distinctions between good and bad blacks
which govern the immigrant experience here have always lurked just below
the surface of life in the West Indies as well. It was the infusion of white
blood that gave the colored class its status in the Caribbean, and the
members of this class have never forgotten that, nor have they failed, in a
thousand subtle ways, to distance themselves from those around them who
experienced a darker and less privileged past.

In my mother's house, in Harewood, the family often passed around a
pencilled drawing of two of my great-grandparents; she was part Jewish, and
he was part Scottish. The other side--the African side--was never mentioned.
My grandmother was the ringleader in this. She prized my grandfather's light
skin, but she also suffered as a result of this standard. "She's nice, you know,
but she's too dark," her mother-in-law would say of her. The most telling
story of all, though, is the story of one of my mother's relatives, whom I'll call
Aunt Joan, who was as fair as my great-grandmother was. Aunt Joan married
what in Jamaica is called an Injun--a man with a dark complexion that is
redeemed from pure Africanness by straight, fine black hair. She had two
daughters by him--handsome girls with dark complexions. But he died young,
and one day, while she was travelling on a train to visit her daughter, she
met and took an interest in a light-skinned man in the same railway car.
What happened next is something that Aunt Joan told only my mother, years
later, with the greatest of shame. When she got off the train, she walked right
by her daughter, disowning her own flesh and blood, because she did not
want a man so light-skinned and desirable to know that she had borne a
daughter so dark.

My mother, in the nineteen-sixties, wrote a book about her experiences.
It was entitled "Brown Face, Big Master," the brown face referring to her and
the big master, in the Jamaican dialect, referring to God. Sons, of course, are
hardly objective on the achievements of their mothers, but there is one
passage in the book that I find unforgettable, because it is such an eloquent
testimony to the moral precariousness of the Jamaican colored class--to the
mixture of confusion and guilt that attends its position as beneficiary of
racism's distinctions. The passage describes a time just after my mother and
father were married, when they were living in London and my eldest brother
was still a baby. They were looking for an apartment, and after a long search
my father found one in a London suburb. On the day after they moved in,
however, the landlady ordered them out. "You didn't tell me your wife was
colored," she told my father, in a rage.

In her book my mother describes her long struggle to make sense of
this humiliation, to reconcile her experience with her faith. In the end, she
was forced to acknowledge that anger was not an option--that as a Jamaican
"middle-class brown," and a descendant of Aunt Joan, she could hardly
reproach another for the impulse to divide good black from bad black:

I complained to God in so many words: "Here I was, the wounded
representative of the negro race in our struggle to be accounted free and
equal with the dominating whites!" And God was amused; my prayer did not
ring true with Him. I would try again. And then God said, "Have you not
done the same thing? Remember this one and that one, people whom you have
slighted or avoided or treated less considerately than others because they
were different superficially, and you were ashamed to be identified with
them. Have you not been glad that you are not more colored than you are?
Grateful that you are not black?" My anger and hate against the landlady
melted. I was no better than she was, nor worse for that matter. . . . We
were both guilty of the sin of self-regard, the pride and the exclusiveness
by which we cut some people off from ourselves.

4.

I grew up in Canada, in a little farming town an hour and a half outside
of Toronto. My father teaches mathematics at a nearby university, and my
mother is a therapist. For many years, she was the only black person in town,
but I cannot remember wondering or worrying, or even thinking, about this
fact. Back then, color meant only good things. It meant my cousins in
Jamaica. It meant the graduate students from Africa and India my father
would bring home from the university. My own color was not something I ever
thought much about, either, because it seemed such a stray fact. Blacks knew
what I was. They could discern the hint of Africa beneath my fair skin. But it
was a kind of secret--something that they would ask me about quietly when
no one else was around. ("Where you from?" an older black man once asked
me. "Ontario," I said, not thinking. "No," he replied. "Where you from?" And
then I understood and told him, and he nodded as if he had already known.
"We was speculatin' about your heritage," he said.) But whites never guessed,
and even after I informed them it never seemed to make a difference. Why
would it? In a town that is ninety-nine per cent white, one modest alleged
splash of color hardly amounts to a threat.

But things changed when I left for Toronto to attend college. This was
during the early nineteen-eighti