RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

America’s Pervasive Pattern of Race-Based Medical Disparities

by Onleilove Alston 12-03-2009

Our country has a long history of underserving and mistreating African-Americans and other marginalized groups. We are seeing this history come to a head in cases such as the 2007 death of a twelve-year-old African-American child, Deamonte Driver of Prince George’s County. Driver died because his mother could not find a Medicaid dentist who would see him for an infected tooth.

Sadly, Driver’s death is one example of many in which, from its inception, America’s health-care system has treated African-Americans unjustly. Although I am specifically addressing disparities in the health-care system for African-Americans, the issue of health care affects Americans of all races and economic backgrounds. It is my hope that by examining health-care injustice in the African-American community, we can see the need for universal health care for all.

Instances such as the Tuskegee Experiment point to the inequality of the American health-care system:

For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis — which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.

The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers’ grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care — almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before — these men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest non-therapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”

When the experiment was brought to the attention of the media in 1972, news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”     (by Borgna Brunner)

Today, African-Americans have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, and high blood-pressure; new research is showing that the high levels of these diseases in the African-American community may be due to the stress of living in a racist society. Environmental racism has led to a great amount of inner-city African-American youth being plagued with asthma. The life expectancy for African-Americans is much lower than that of whites (Mortality of White Americans, African Americans, and Canadians: The Causes and Consequences for Health of Welfare State Institutions and Policies, by Kunitz SJ and Pesis-Katz I.). Although all American citizens are harmed by our current health-care system, African-Americans are harmed at alarming rates, shown by the fact that “for many health conditions, non-Hispanic blacks bear a disproportionate burden of disease, injury, death, and disability.” (CDC-MMRW Weekly)

Our quality of life is affected by a health-care system that was not created for us, but has used us to benefit others. Ever since we were seen as three-fifths of a human being during slavery, our bodies were used in gruesome experiments by doctors who wanted to perfect their craft, at our expense, so that they could better serve white society. Harriet A. Washington shines a light on how harmful the American field of health care has been to African-Americans in her landmark book, Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present.  African-Americans who were enslaved, or free but poor, were at the mercy of a health-care system that gave them sub-par or even harmful “treatment.”

Today this inequality in health care, though not as blatant, still exists. African-Americans who cannot afford the high cost of private health care are given sub-par treatment at clinics that are overcrowded and understaffed, if they can even obtain care at all.

On Saturday Nov. 7, 2009 the house passed what President Obama praised as ahistoric vote to pass a bill that would be the biggest expansion of health-care coverage since Medicare was created more than 40 years ago. The Affordable Health Care for America Act, or H.R. 3962, restricts insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or charging higher premiums based on gender or medical history. It also provides federal subsidies to those who cannot afford health insurance. And it guarantees coverage for 96 percent of Americans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.”

Though this is a historic step in the right direction, the Senate has yet to vote on the bill. Even if they approve it, the single payer option was removed, meaning that the bill may not go far enough in ending health-care disparities. To ensure that African-Americans and all residents of our country (documented or not) receive health-care equality we need to continue to advocate for a single payer option where everyone is in and no one is out.

The faith community has to stand up and say — enough! In the same way that we mobilized for civil rights, we have to mobilize for the right to be healthy. A healthy people is a strong people and a strong people can fight for equality.

This article is in memory of the late Marilyn Clement, founder of Healthcare-Now and friend of Union Theological Seminary.

portrait-onleilove-alstonOnleilove Alston is a student at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University School of Social Work. She organizes with NY Faith & Justice and the Poverty Initiative. During the summer of 2008 she served at Sojourners as a Beatitudes Society Fellow. You can visit her blog Esther’s Call.

Categories: Health, Human Rights, Race
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • If you like we can cross-reference members of the Constitutional Convention with admired founders... I think the results will be similar.

    Despite what you say, there is nothing benevolent about a relationship in which one human being is owned by another human being (as in, "I'd really like to set you free, but I'm a little behind in my bills right now, so you'll just have to wait until after I die.")

    There is little repentence in Jefferson's story, and less in Washington's. Yet there is, I think, the conflicted heart that isn't sure whether to repent. And I'm not sure whether it was legally possible for Jefferson to free his slaves, given his immense debt. But he made political steps toward abolition even if they contradicted his personal life.

    But as you mentioned, "they all knew and acknowledged that it {slavery} was wrong."

    So, no, they did not all know and acknowledge that it was wrong.

    Um... OK.

    You see, when the writers say that it was God who actually ordered the wholesale slaughter of every man, woman. and child, then who has the authority to mete out punishment for that crime?

    Jesus didn't argue with Scripture, and neither will I. The Bible says God ordered genocide, so I believe it. I sure don't understand it, but that's a given.
  • john316
    Thanks for making my point far more elegantly than I could have done it. Since the focus of our exchange has been the Constitution, you might have wanted to check to see how many of those that you cited above were actually part of the Constitutional Convention (Washington and Franklin were there - Adams and Jefferson were not). But as you mentioned, "they all knew and acknowledged that it {slavery} was wrong."

    In fact, they all loved their slaves. Jefferson loved his slaves so much that he actually...well you know the rest of the story (even though his descendants required a DNA test before they would accept it) It was a pretty common practice for the slave owners to "love" their slaves because there was some concern that they were just not loving themselves enough to keep the slave population going. So right there, embedded in the the first paragraph of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is a guarantee that citizens could continue to import slaves until 40 years after it was written.

    I think it was to our shame that we adopted a document that institutionalized slavery and which required a bloody conflict 70 years later to finally resolve. It is to our shame that we extended full rights to African Americans only about 30 years before South Africa similarly acted. Despite what you say, there is nothing benevolent about a relationship in which one human being is owned by another human being (as in, "I'd really like to set you free, but I'm a little behind in my bills right now, so you'll just have to wait until after I die.") So, no, they did not all know and acknowledge that it was wrong.

    You are right about the holocausts in Scripture, but you are wrong when you say that "the perpetrators always get punished." You see, when the writers say that it was God who actually ordered the wholesale slaughter of every man, woman. and child, then who has the authority to mete out punishment for that crime?
  • Well, you may choose not to believe the whole 3/5 thing if you want, but it's a part of the original Constitution (see below).

    The Constitution isn't like the Bible; I can accept part of it and discard the rest (not as the law of the land, but as the ideal). Fortunately, we've done that as a nation in this case.

    And I'm curious to know where you find the "ethics it establishes" that support your conclusion.

    Sorry, that should have been the "ethics established by the framers." They also framed the Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are created equal, with rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Our system of slavery took all except maybe the first.

    I'd also like to know the basis for your statement that "most of the founders that we admire now despised the system."

    "Washington believed that slavery would eventually die out on its own." (He also owned slaves, and I don't see his justification for that there.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_...

    "Adams never bought a slave and declined on principle to employ slave labor. Abigail Adams opposed slavery and employed free blacks in preference to her father's two domestic slaves. He spoke out against a bill to emancipate slaves in Massachusetts, opposed use of black soldiers in the Revolution, and tried to keep the issue out of national politics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

    "During his lifetime, Jefferson attempted twice to legislate the emancipation of slaves, one time in 1769 at the Virginia General Assembly, and another in 1784 at the Continental Congress. Jefferson also railed against King George III of Great Britain and the slave trade in his draft copy of the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776. Yet Jefferson, himself, acquired and sold hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime, owning as many as 267 in 1822. A profligate spender, Jefferson was deeply in debt and had encumbered his slaves by notes and mortgages; he could not free them until he was free of debt, which he never achieved. All but one of Jefferson's slaves was sold after his death to pay his debts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_a...

    "After his return, Franklin became an abolitionist, freeing both of his slaves. He eventually became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

    [...]

    In his later years, as Congress was forced to deal with the issue of slavery, Franklin wrote several essays that attempted to convince his readers of the importance of the abolition of slavery and of the integration of blacks into American society. [...] In 1790, Quakers from New York and Pennsylvania presented their petition for abolition. Their argument against slavery was backed by the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society and its president, Benjamin Franklin." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#...

    If they really "despised the system", then why did they continue to own them?

    Adams and Franklin freed theirs, Jefferson couldn't, and Washington freed his after both he and his wife died. I didn't look up any other founders. EDIT: Oops, didn't answer your question. They were imperfect in both morality and will, but I think they all knew and acknowledged that it was wrong.

    Finally, I don't understand your statement that "God would tolerate such a sin for so many centuries is absurd." Are you really suggesting that because God "tolerated it" somehow makes it right? Using that logic, one could assume that because God tolerated the slaughter of 6 million Jews that He approved of it?? Or at the very least, he does not explicitly condemn it?

    If the Holocaust were in Scripture you might have a point. But wait, there are holocausts in scripture - and IIRC the perpetrators always get punished. Not so with slavery. So yes, I am suggesting that if something remains in God's presence and isn't consumed by fire then it is pure.
  • john316
    "but the ethics it establishes meet that conclusion so long as we don't believe the whole 3/5 thing."

    Well, you may choose not to believe the whole 3/5 thing if you want, but it's a part of the original Constitution (see below). And I'm curious to know where you find the "ethics it establishes" that support your conclusion. I'd also like to know the basis for your statement that "most of the founders that we admire now despised the system." If they really "despised the system", then why did they continue to own them? Was there some hidden force that required them to do something that was totally against their morals?

    Finally, I don't understand your statement that "God would tolerate such a sin for so many centuries is absurd." Are you really suggesting that because God "tolerated it" somehow makes it right? Using that logic, one could assume that because God tolerated the slaughter of 6 million Jews that He approved of it?? Or at the very least, he does not explicitly condemn it?

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons
  • You didn't point out a contradiction, so I won't try to refute that point.

    Note my explanation for the condemnation of slavery in the original document. It is not explicitly forbidden, but the ethics it establishes meet that conclusion so long as we don't believe the whole 3/5 thing. And I believe most of the founders that we admire now despised the system. They admitted that clause into it so the Union wouldn't be split at such a tender age, although that might have been a mistake. And I've read the Constitution; please be slower to presume such things. EDIT: And I know the 13th amendment was ratified generations later. It's part of the Constitution now, though.

    The Bible does not explicitly condemn slavery - only as much as I suggest the Constitution does. That God would tolerate such a sin for so many centuries is absurd. Therefore I think it's in the interest of the anti-racist to point out differences between the systems.
  • john316
    "EDIT: Not to mention the amendment that overwrote the condoning part."

    Your reply was contradictory. In the first part of your reply, you seem to find some hidden purpose of the framers and you go on to say that it both forbids and condones slavery. (It does no such thing - Article I apportions representation in the states "...according to their respective numbers which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound for service for a term of years and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons...") No part of the constitution forbids slavery. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution (ratified in 1865 following the bloodiest conflict in our nation's history) was not ratified until Dec 1865. The entire Constitution is available on line and you would do well to read it.

    "I don't know whether the pure slavery practiced in biblical times was OK." What the heck is "pure slavery"? Do you really think that "pure slavery" might be acceptable?
  • While the framers of the Constitution did appease slaveholders, the principles in the Constitution along with the wishes of the more respectable framers are at odds with that appeasement. So, depending on how you want to look at it, the Constitution both forbids and condones slavery. EDIT: Not to mention the amendment that overwrote the condoning part.

    I qualified the next point as "slavery itself" and "necessarily" because I don't know whether the pure slavery practiced in biblical times was OK. I do know that the (racist) type we argue about was wrong, so I restricted my comment to that type.

    :\ Alright, I'll add that to my reading list, although I thought I had been clear enough that I don't agree with racism.
  • john316
    Sorry to butt in here, but you wrote two things above that are false and need correcting:
    1. "Law was an appropriate solution for that symptom of racism because the Constitution was violated." No, the Constitutional was not violated. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited slavery. In fact, the framers ensured that the southern whites got to count the slaves as a portion of a person for purposes of determining their representation in Congress.
    2. "Slavery itself was not necessarily a problem..." I beg to differ. Slavery (or any kind of human bondage) is a problem. If you have difficulty understanding that simple concept, then that explains why you cannot relate to issues of racial equality or justice.

    As a teen, I read a book called "Black Like Me." The writer (who was white) did something to change his skin tone and then recorded the ways in which he was treated in his new identity. I recommend that you read it.
  • Well, it's similar after all... The Hitchhiker's Guide to Politics.

    Do you happen to know of a biblical example of such a conundrum? AFAIK all the questions/problems are spelled out; not that it has to come from Scripture to be valid, but I'm curious. (EDIT: As this is off-topic I'll only give you one post to give examples and state whether I agree, rather than debating the examples. EDIT2: Hmm, that's inconsistent with something I said earlier. Tell me if you'd rather debate the examples.)
  • letjusticerolldown
    If you keep asking to be convinced there is something to learn--you will not learn. You have to decide if God is inviting you to ask the questions.

    "OK, what's the principle?"

    The principle is one you discover through inquiry; when you will look at the reality which you are peering into from a different perspective that will give you a richer view of what is true and the ability to walk with greater wisdom.
  • That is why she asks you to explore and learn. But you have to ask the questions and seek answers. If you keep asking to be convinced there is something to learn--you will not learn. You have to decide if God is inviting you to ask the questions.

    *pause* Oh, so the answer is "race" instead of 42! But we still need to find the question... (Alright, so that is an exaggeration of your point, but it's how I feel.)

    Why do I suspect God is asking you? Because the way you both resist and at the same time demonstrate a heart to ask.

    Sorry, but no. I ask because I believe I'm obligated to in order to be intellectually honest; I cannot be confident in my belief unless I know what I disbelieve (or at least the more mainstream competitors). I resist because I can't stomach this particular point. Sometimes I'll find a point that I can agree with, but those are like needles in the haystack - and usually problems rather than solutions.

    I do not think she is saying, nor that I am saying, that if you understand the history and presence of racial health disparities, that you will conclude everything is a problem of race. She is arguing that you will have a different perspective on what a universal care system means for all.

    Then the principle seen clearly in black healthcare translates to the entire system? OK, what's the principle?
  • letjusticerolldown
    That is why she asks you to explore and learn. But you have to ask the questions and seek answers. If you keep asking to be convinced there is something to learn--you will not learn. You have to decide if God is inviting you to ask the questions.

    Why do I suspect God is asking you? Because the way you both resist and at the same time demonstrate a heart to ask.

    I do not think she is saying, nor that I am saying, that if you understand the history and presence of racial health disparities, that you will conclude everything is a problem of race. She is arguing that you will have a different perspective on what a universal care system means for all.

    Most of what I believe I understand as a result of being taken on a journey asking questions around race--don't have much to do with race at all. This is the nature of addressing fundamental sins. That which has stolen much has the potential to restore much.
  • (EDIT: You did already mention some bad doctors, so I removed a related point which you probably saw in email. Broadness is a vague measure and so I'm not sure whether it corresponds to intensity, but because of that vagueness there's no use debating this point.)

    All she asked was for you to listen--and you want her to prove racism first.

    She is using racism as her central point in her argument. Universal healthcare is not something I'll accept just as a matter of course for the momentum of the "tolerancism" that has sprung from the civil rights movement. If the measure weren't so against my principles, I'd say go ahead and have fun with it.

    I'm confused why you're still illustrating racism. I know it's there, but not in such a broad way that healthcare must be reformed to eradicate it. You seem to be saying that by the pattern of our history we can induce that it is so broad. Has our culture been reformed enough that several would-be racists are educated beyond that prejudice?
  • letjusticerolldown
    "Although I am specifically addressing disparities in the health-care system for African-Americans, the issue of health care affects Americans of all races and economic backgrounds. It is my hope that by examining health-care injustice in the African-American community, we can see the need for universal health care for all."

    At this point I think I would just say to re-read these words from Ms Alston as to what she seeks to communicate and consider her words in that light.

    Your comments about race usually feel to me like you feel someone is waving their finger in your face. Your first response seemed to reject her invitation to consider the systemic and historic relationship between a health system and the health of black Americans. She asked you consider that, not as an end to itself, but as a window to consider the value of a universal care system.

    Your precondition to consideration was that she demonstrate the relationship between "healthcare and black illness."

    I stood at a stoplight in downtown Minneapolis late one evening. A black woman was walking across the street in the crosswalk. A man in a sports coupe was stopped across to my left waiting to cross. The light turned. The woman was about 2/3 across the street. The man stepped on the gas hard--accelerated straight at her and went right past her back. My wife (black) had multiple similar experiences both running and driving with persons aiming to run her off the road.

    My point is not to say all kinds of bad stuff happens to black persons becuase of their skin color. My point is to say that you could make the same response as you did to Ms Alston--which is essentially, I will consider if you prove that any particular injustice was caused by skin color. e.g. "Prove slaves were taken from Africa because they were black and not because they were prisoners held for sale into slavery." "Prove persons could not vote in the south because they were black instead of that they could not pay the poll tax and pass the poll test."

    And you can go on and on.

    Racism has been a central (if not the fundamental) sin of this nation and society. By nature of the sin--the mind of the dominant culture is numb to the sin. At the heart of racism is making folks invisible. Next to the heart of racism is an ideology that makes it invisible to the persons carrying out the sin. i.e. Our hearts are darkened.

    If we are to battle against sin and death--we must be willing to aim at the heart of the fundamental sins of our own persons and of the principalities and powers of our time and place.

    Think of the breadth and depth of racism in this nation. Think of the division. Think of torture and inhumanity of the slave ships and slave auctions. Think of the continuous history. Think of churches whose congregations sang Amazing Grace--and whose members regathered around the lynching tree the following Saturday. Don't bother debating about whether marginal stuff has to do with race. Just put your heart and mind around the long, sordid, history you know is there.

    And you can track forward to this morning's comment section in my local papers story about attempts to increase the number of minority physicians. Here is comment from GoBackToKenya (a person whose screen name should leave no illusions about his love for black persons): "Healthcare was better and more affordable before the DC commies began importing and training foreigners to do what Americans could already do."

    You have black Christian brothers and sisters who have made requests of white Christians for 200+ years--to stop, to listen, to change--when we should have been on the front line ourselves in humility before God to do justice and love mercy.

    All she asked was for you to listen--and you want her to prove racism first.
  • (EDIT: And I am trying to see your point... I might already, if you don't agree with solving racism with otherwise unnecessary laws.)

    The slave was being whipped only because he was a slave, but he was a slave because whites took blacks from Africa. Slavery itself was not necessarily a problem, but the racist version practiced at the time was corrupt. The slave master sinned as an individual; we supposedly sin collectively.

    Law was an appropriate solution for that symptom of racism because the Constitution was violated. The Constitution was again violated by laws which segregated blacks from whites. The Constitution is not violated by considerations of income or low tax rates. Racists are surely manipulating the economy to achieve their ends, but this is not a legal issue.

    But I still don't see how "my" family does or doesn't fit into your point.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Elderly people systemically make less money than middle-age persons in our nation. The nation is ageist. Does that mean we hate old people? No. It simply describes a systemic disparity.

    "But wait," you say, "it might not be because of age. It is because of less strength, health issues, dementia, inability to drive and 25 other things. It is not the actual age that causes the disparity."

    This is flawed logic. You see the disparity related to a characteristic (ie age) but then contend if our attitude about age did not directly cause the disparity--then the disparity does not exist. The inability to prove an attitude/idea caused the disparity proves the disparity does not exist.

    Racism does not demand an intent to discriminate. It does not demand a hateful attitude. Everyone can make the right decision--and produce a racist outcome. The racist outcome exists--with, or without intent.

    You keep flipping back to asserting that if no one set out to produce the racist result--then by definition there is no racism.

    Montgomery, where I live, is half black and half white. There is almost nothing in public or private life in which race is not a calculation. This is just as most of us notice that people we deal with are men or women. The fact we notice does not mean anything particular. I am just noticing that we notice.

    I also notice that the public school system is mostly black and the private system is mostly white. Come to think of it--it looks strangely similar to a segregated system that was dismantled around 1970. Except it didn't dismantle. White Christians set up a separate private white system.

    The Christian vote has twice rebuffed statewide reform to adequately fund public education.

    Virtually every white parent choosing private schools (and sacrificially making that choice) may be making the right choice for the right reasons. And the choices feed into a systemically structure with a racist result.

    Too often we want the luxury of taking race into account in every transaction--and then when it comes to noting racial disparities saying, "Well, you can't prove it was caused because someone with a hateful attitude set out to produce the result. Therefore race is meaningless."

    This is what I have been attempting to communicate in describing race as meaning nothing and meaning everything.

    You get the "nothing" part real well. I would love it if you attempted to see the "everything" side of the paradox.

    Persons make the same arguments 200 years ago. "No, you're not being whipped because you are a black man. You are being whipped because you are a slave. There are free men who are black. I am not whipping them. I am whipping you. I'm also not whipping 50 other slaves here--I'm whipping you because of your behavior. This isn't racist behavior. It's because I have a big financial investment in you returning a profit. The problem is your attitude."

    Your argument has been made a thousand times and it ends up exacting a huge price on the hearts/minds of many black persons as they experience something like, "This is not right. It does not feel right. This is wrong. But maybe it is me. Maybe I am the problem." And if you add this internal pressure on a person for 40 years--we can actually cause death.

    I am not speaking hypothetically. This is reality with real consequences.

    I agree with you that race is a social construct. And it can be made to be meaningless. But it is not meaningless. Our language and understanding of reality sees race every moment of every day. White persons have the luxury of thinking this is not the case because most of us do not proceed through our days thinking "I am white." Until we see a black person--and we consciously or unconsciously distinguish. In the same way that when I see women--my subconsious at least notes "I am man. I am not woman."

    Our very distinction of "white" means "not black." And that "not black" meaning was not born out of noticing different skin pigmentation. It was born in the context of "I am different and superior."

    We basically have to jump out of our cultural framework to see racism. Otherwise, we simply reject its existence by definition.
  • irish_annie
    i experienced some frustration at the slant and misrepresentation of this article. our family is multiracial (white, black and asian indian). i also volunteer at a local food pantry where we have a parish nurse 3 times a week and a doctor twice a month. it's all free. but you can't force the clients to give up cigarettes, excessive drinking and smoking crack. you can't force them to eat healthy foods and exercise. so, of course they have high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes!!! at some point, they're going to HAVE to take some personal responsibility. as Jesus said to the guy laying by the pool, "do you WANT to get well?!!!"
    i've worked with community action corps for the last 25 years from rural white areas to my current ministry to urban blacks. the little boy's mother couldn't find him a dentist, NOT because he was black, but because he was on MEDICAID - a government system so poorly run that they are usually out of money and some dentists just can't afford to take their clients free of charge. another problem is that, if taught proper dental hygiene, a 12 yr old shouldn't have a tooth so infected that it brought about his death. the possibility of parental neglect should be investigated. whether white or black, it is common for the poor who are on medicaid to neglect a problem until it is so severe that it requires a trip to the ER at 2am... btw, inner city black children have a higher incidence of asthma due to roach droppings in their living environment (i'm also a respiratory therapist). most parents are not compliant with their children's prescribed course of treatment, even though it is FREE. there's just so much more in play than was represented in this article - so much so that it borders on falsehood.
  • As far as I can tell all the things you mentioned can be addressed from angles other than racism. They may have been motivated by race, but the laws are not inherently racist.

    Earlier you said racism has to do with outcomes. But the outcomes could conceivably result from other causes; racism is the actual cause in some cases, but the outcomes are not racist. That my hypothetical family is perpetually disadvantaged is not a matter of discrimination, just life.

    So I disagree; racism has nothing to do with the outcomes themselves. Racism is a mindset; the effects of that mindset will disappear after the mindset itself has died off.

    What do I think we should do about the mindset? Everything we need to do anyway, only more. Our kindness must be significantly greater toward blacks because there is a deep wound in their cultural conscious. But I don't think any laws are appropriate as part of this effort.
  • One correction. There never was a "single payer option." The Senate may or may not include a "Public Option," a publicly run health insurance plan that competes with private companies. There are some new ideas for what to do about that, such as delaying the date of the "mandate" until health insurers demonstrate that they have a truly affordable policy for everyone.

    And one observation. It's quite possible that health disparities for African Americans are, in part, caused by living in a racist society. In the book, Unhealthy Societies; The Afflictions of Inequality, the author, Richard Wilkinson, makes a convincing case that health outcomes for the poor in industrialized societies are caused by inequality, not by bad habits or lack of access to health care. England, for example, has universal coverage, but health outcomes about as bad as ours. Given the extra stresses caused by racism, that could very well make things even worse.

    The bad news there is that universal health care won't fix the problem. We need to ;have a more egalitarian society and more civic engagement, by reducing the gap between the richest and poorest in this country. That has been done in some countries, but not often. It would require the "redistribution of wealth" that conservatives find so heinous. But, as Isaiah said, "The spoil of the poor is in your houses!" The "redistribution" would be giving it back to the people to whom it belongs. Restoring public engagement and a true representative democracy would also help. That's not an argument against universal health care. We need it too. But most of the health issues will not be solved by it. And it seems unlikely that the real solution will be embraced.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I likely left out half the sentences I would have needed to make a coherent point--and probably was very sloppy with the ones I did write. So I would take no offense if you said I make no sense.

    I was trying to say something about the place of race in considering health stats. Just like some sicknesses go together (e.g. obesity goes along with other stuff)--so do social sicknesses. Poverty goes with unemployment goes with poor education goes with post traumatic stress goes with violence goes with single parenthood goes with generational dysfunction and on and on and on.

    I don't think black poverty looks alot different than white poverty. That is what I meant when I said race means nothing.

    On the other hand--race is significantly associated with poverty in this nation. So on an individual basis, race means little. And you can understand a whole lot about poverty by not looking at race at all. By not considering it--one is not fooled to think race is overly significant. But to not switch gears and see the siginicant relationship between race and poverty in the US would be to commit analytical suicide. In that way--race is everything.

    There are a whole lot of poor white folks in my state of Alabama. Part of the reason there is the depth of poverty is that in the broad scope of things Alabama decided a segregated, racist society was of greater importance than economic prosperity. So we still suffer. Everyone.

    And during the time of enslavement and segregation there was one population often mobilized and stoked to do the dirty work of violent oppression: poor white folk.

    The tax system here is still blatantly unjust. The state constitution was formed to structure a racist society. Bad tax systems produce poorly funded education. This is the cost of racism.

    Older blacks mistrust health providers. 45 miles down the road is Tuskeegee where the Feds used persons as human 'guinea pigs' in health experimentation. Mistrust undermines care. Poverty undermines good nutrition. We are spending gobs of energy here still maintaining dual systems of most everything. It stops the interactive synergy that happens when the best resources of a people start leveraging value from each other.

    I know I'm rambling but I could go a thousand directions with the impact of race on the whole nation.

    Is government obligated to lift a white family or black family out of poverty?

    I don't belive so. But everything it does should include a consideration of how its actions impact poor persons. I believe, for instance, it is obligated to pay out (which it has been reluctant to do) compensation black farmers which for decades were unjustly denied operating loans across the South. I do not believe it should put a 10% sales tax on groceries (as we have here) because it doesn't want to switch to a more just form of taxation. That is a regressive tax on poor persons(white and black)--kept in place largely by white conservative Christians.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008