The granting of political and civil rights to Africa descendants in the 1960s occurred in a form in which white society did not encounter and come to understand the African-American perspective. There was not a move toward understanding, but merely the making of concessions. White society did not grasp that the granting of these rights came 100 years too late with respect to the possibilities for the economic development of the black community, and specific government policies would have to be developed to compensate for this fact. Nor did white society grasp the implications of the anti-imperialist components of the black power discourse, which pointed to the need for a world-system in which the sovereign rights of Third World nations would be respected, if the promise of democracy were to prevail in the world as a whole. Continuing to look at race and the world from a limited white-centered perspective, subtle forms of racism endured and have had various manifestations up to the present day.
But beyond the survival of white racism in a less blatant form, the issue of race has not been managed well by the movement itself. To proclaim that white society is characterized by subtle racism, although entirely true, has not been an effective political strategy in the post-1965 era. Since racism has become more subtle, most whites are not aware that they are infected by it, and they receive the proclamation as an unjust accusation. It therefore provokes negative reaction, resentment, and hostility. A far more effective strategy would be to leave the question of subtle racism aside and to seek political alliance on the basis of common interests that both whites and blacks have, as professionals, businesspersons, workers, farmers, persons who are fearful of unemployment or experience intermittent unemployment, or persons who find it difficult to pay for necessities. As a result of the fact that blatant racism is no longer socially acceptable, such political alliance is much more possible today than in the past. And in the context of working together on common interests, a process of personal encounter may often arise, and whites would begin to move beyond subtle racism.
A word on affirmative action. When I first heard, in the late 1960s, about a program of affirmative action to ensure equal treatment of blacks and women who possess equal qualifications for employment and education, I was taken aback at its limited intentions. It does nothing to address the social and economic conditions that limit opportunities to attain credentials for employment. In spite of its limitations, I defended affirmative action for years in my classroom teaching in conservative church-related colleges in the South and Midwest. I found a strong resistance to it among my white students, even white women, who displayed in their arguments subtle forms of racism. But the subtle racism aside, they also argued against special treatment for any group, maintaining that equal treatment is the foundation of democracy. It seems to me that a difficulty with affirmative action is the absence of other new initiatives that protect the working class and the poor, who have been abandoned since the 1970s. In such a political context, affirmative action is going to be perceived as unfair by whites, especially white workers who are living below the poverty line. Promoting a program of affirmative action in the absence of a comprehensive project to protect the social and economic rights of all is exactly what you would want to do if your goal is to increase white resentment. But our goal should be to reduce subtle forms of white racism, and to protect the social and economic rights of all.
Like the United States, Cuba has a long history of African slavery, abolition, and decades of racial segregation. But there is a basic difference between Cuba and the United States with respect to race. In the late nineteenth century, Cuban blacks and whites were coming together in a popular movement in opposition to the Cuban bourgeoisie, Spanish colonialism, and emerging US imperialism, a unity that continued in the popular struggles during the neocolonial republic; in contrast, in the United States during the late nineteenth century, the political-economic-social system of Jim Crow was being established and constitutionally affirmed. So Cuba for decades, before the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, had been more advanced than the United States with respect to race. Nevertheless, the Cuban revolutionary leadership discerned that race was a potentially divisive issue, and they above all desired the unity of the people, so that the revolution could effectively struggle against powerful domestic and international enemies. So rather than affirmative action for blacks and women, they adopted a policy of aggressive state action in the protection of the social and economic rights of all, with the intention that this strategy would ultimately overcome inequalities between blacks and whites and between men and women. Since the 1960s, Cuba has not eliminated all forms of racial and gender inequality, but they have done far better on these issues than has the United States, and one does not find in Cuba an iota of resentment toward the attainments of women and blacks, for the revolution has meant advances not only for these popular sectors, but for all.
An anecdote on affirmative action. A couple of years ago a retired Cuban woman professor was giving a presentation on “Women in Cuba” to an international group of professors that I had organized for educational activities. She was describing the phenomenon in Cuba of the “feminization of education,” where more women than men were entering higher education as administrators, professors and students. She noted that with respect to admissions for medical education, a highly prestigious field in Cuba, an affirmative action program was developed in the 1980s in order to give support to men, whose admission rate was lower. But the women protested, saying that the men have the same opportunity to study and prepare themselves for admission, and they should be admitted on the same basis as women, without any consideration for gender enrollment. And so the revolutionary government, conceding to the perception of the women that it was unfair, eliminated the affirmative action program after only one year. Now I ask, if young Cuban women, socialized all their lives in the socialist values of social consciousness, perceive affirmative action as unfair, how are white men in the United States, who have not been formed in values of social consciousness, going to feel?
In the late 1960s, there were those who were advocating an approach to social change based on class. In their view, white and blacks should come together on the basis of common class interests, mostly conceived as a working class. But this was not a sound conception. Firstly, the class analysis of the 1960s was rooted in a classic Marxist view that gave priority to class exploitation over colonial domination. As such, it was divisive, for it was perceived correctly by blacks as diminishing the significance of centuries of colonial domination and as ignoring Third World struggles for national liberation. It was a view, moreover, that tended to reduce racial difference to insignificance, when in fact in the United States blacks and whites live in different social worlds and have different perceptions, values, languages and cultures.
In contrast to the class analysis advocated by some Leftist organizations in the 1960s, today there are some who advocate a species of identity politics, based on one’s identity as a women, black, Latino(a), Native American, Asian American, or gay or lesbian. But this formulation excludes people who do not pertain to or do not desire to identify with any of the groups, and thus it has limited appeal, and it plants divisions among the people. It is an approach that underestimates the importance of unity among all of the people, in light of powerful enemies whose interests are opposed to a project that protects the rights of the people. It is an approach that one would advocate if one wanted to sow differences among our people and undermine the unity of the people.
What I am suggesting is neither the priority of class over race; nor the priority of racial, ethnic, or gender identity. What I am suggesting is the formation of popular coalition, a political alliance of different sectors of the popular classes, sectors that include workers, professionals, businesspersons, merchants, farmers, women, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. Any one of these can be the basis of distinct ethnic, gender, class and occupational identities and cultures. Such identities are fine and good, if people have them, and they can actively participate in the activities that are organized by and for such groups. But the forming of a popular coalition is another matter. It is a political alliance among the different popular sectors, constructed on the foundation of common interests and needs. The popular coalition must be based on mutual respect, in spite of cultural differences and differences in life-styles and beliefs. Such mutual respect is likely to be more formal at first, but it will become more genuine as the coalition becomes a political force and attains concrete gains in defense of the needs of the people.
A socialist project in the United States should advocate cultural pluralism and the preservation of cultural diversity, including languages and unique philosophies, as well as special attention to the just treatment of members of racial and ethnic groups that have been historically excluded and especially impacted by the neoliberal project. It can maintain affirmative action programs for racial and ethnic groups and women as a component of this commitment to a multicultural society with full equality. But such an approach to race and ethnicity should be part of a comprehensive program that is clearly and fully committed to the social and economic rights of all, so that all will feel that the unfolding popular national project has their needs in mind.