I never really cared what percent of the game was which ethnicity as long as there aren't any corporate-imposed barriers to any group getting their shot if they choose. It's not like baseball is ignoring US blacks and only doing work in Latin America...they're all over the map now with programs for the poor wherever they can set them up. Black athletes seem to be choosing football and basketball over baseball in the last three decades - that's what they are more interested in, for whatever reason.
I have a theory, ad it may be a little uncomfortable for some of the readers here, so I'm going to phrase it carefully. You've observed that other blogs seem to go out of their way not to link back to you...that the media seems to read your stuff (because your ideas periodically appear out of nowhere and with no credit) but not highlight you.
I am of the opinion that commentary like this is the source of that unfairness. I recall a thread on your blog just before we signed Chone Figgins in which you made a tongue in cheek joke about urban name spellings that disintegrated into a pack of PC police accusing you of latent racism. A similar fight ensued when you commented on Milton Bradley, I seem to recall.
I think the elite Seattle commentariate decided a while ago that you were not PC enough. Their loss. :(
.
Lightly-political commentary follows.
You think James would give you a heads-up when he wanted to talk about life lessons from baseball? :- ) One wag complained, at BJOL, he didn't think it was appropriate to talk about politics on a baseball blog. Bill's terse reply: Who told you this was a baseball blog?
HEH!
To phrase it another way, it ain't like SSI is being funded by Congress with a mandated content mission. Who says that X, Y, or Z should go on in Dr. D's addled mind?
....
Apparently RBI means "Reviving Baseball in the Inner Cities," or somesuch.
We hear that baseball is 50% white, 40% Latin, 7% "African-American," and 2% Asian. Are the M's over 7%? Dunno. I thought they were over 30%. The Dominican All-Star team here discriminates against the black race?
How do you ensure proper representation among 25 employees ... make sure 40%+ are white, 8% are black, and you have one Asian ... while winning the pennant.
:- )
......
Is a black Latin player, "black?" The Urban Dictionary says: "the black race can range from African-American to Polynesian." In 1860 in Georgia ... hey, maybe in 1960 ... a 1/32nd African ancestry meant that you were 'colored.'
It's hard to charge the M's with bias on any level, subconscious or otherwise. Pro sports got past that a long time ago, and I wonder whether the M's can afford to ignore skin color now. The way they ignore hair color.
.......
As to which sport is selected by inner-city kids at age 8 ... I'm confused as to why SOCIETY has any interest in choosing for them. Supposing that the pro volleyball league is sad that more kids from the 'hood don't play volleyball?
There will always be the next sport, "under-represented" in the 'hood or in Alaska or in Hawaii or in Spokane or some blinkin' place. What is the representation of blacks on USSM or Lookout Landing? Do LL and Fangraphs need to get a little color goin' on, in their writing staffs? Or is it enough that their doors are wide open?
The RBI Program makes a nice statement, and it redistributes a little bit of money into poor areas. That's wonderful. It's especially wonderful if baseball is doing it out of the warmth of its heart, out of human decency, as opposed to doing it for political capital. Or doing it as a token way to alleviate our consciences. A better way to alleviate conscience is to get personally involved, rather than to pressure Corporate America to do it for us by proxy.
You could actually argue that poor black kids in America have the "hope" of the NBA and NFL, and that all Latin black kids have is the "hope" of MLB. And that therefore America should not horn in on the meager territory that comforts those in the third world.
.......
Some people charged Russell Wilson with not being black enough. According to Charles Barkley, this was coming from blacks, not whites. (Why would Steve Raible complain that Wilson wasn't black enough?)
The idea was that Wilson is too cozied up to The Man, too interested in cooperation rather than individual glory. We argued back and forth, until Earl Thomas put "paid" to the conversation. "He does his job. This stuff is an insult to our race." Crickets followed.
Yes, it is. Barkley characterized it with his typical honesty. Some people think that "black enough" means being an idiot or a thug, says he. If being educated and being a team player means being white, we'd better all mate until we're the same color.
.........
It's okay by me if MLB wants to recruit inner-city kids to play baseball, and it's okay by me if the USCF wants to recruit inner-city kids to play chess, and it's okay by me if the curling fans want to recruit inner-city kids to play street hockey. But it means absolutely zero to me. As the Dalai Lama said, our job is to go about the business of living peacefully.
And Jay-Z's job is to go about the business of reeling in Melky Cabrera, as opposed to Steven Souza. Because of the 5.7 runs created per game.
Good stuff guys,
Dr. D
Comments
I'm not singled out for disfellowship - ANYbody who is "insensitive"will be excluded from the group. The hair-trigger trapdoor gets you excluded for poltical trangressions far less than mine. As Ann Coulter put it last week, the PC Code -- punished for anything the editor deems "insensitive" -- would make Chairman Mao blush.
PC is fascist at its very core. Come to SSI for authentic tolerance and inclusiveness.
...........
Geoff Baker, by far the most influential Seattle sports microphone, was the one guy who never gave two snaps for my "insensitivity." And the reason he didn't: he feels like if somebody says something stupid, he'll prove them wrong. No need to duct-tape people's mouths if you're not afraid of them.
At Bill James Online, James is currently pointing out that the "McCarthyism" labeling has blamed the wrong man, at least partially. In PC Seattle, they would literally GASP if he wrote that as an Op-Ed. He simply says what he believes to be the truth, and if that costs him subscribers, so be it.
The new blog can succeed or fail based on who you and I really are as people; I couldn't care less. Let people disfellowship me for saying that the Russell Wilson stuff came from other blacks. It happens to be the truth.
..........
On our death beds, will we be sorry that we said what we believed? Or will we wish that we'd buckled under more often, to what others wanted to hear?
Is the Round Mound of Rebound going to wish that he'd said what others wanted him to say?
Of color, there is distinction of "black" by Latin and African Americans. I've read comments on this from Torii Hunter, Gary Sheffield, among others, that black refers only to African American players. Clearly many Latin players are of African ancestry. Why they are not black will forever confuse me but I accept their distinction. Many studies have been commissioned by baseball and others to determine the decline in black American participation. The best theory I recall relates to marketing, demographics and salary structure. Football and basketball attract more athletes, in general because it is quicker to reach the top level, individual player marketing is more prevalent and therefore lucrative and the individual makes more money sooner. Baseball is viewed as taking longer to realize top earning power and has fewer individual marketing opportunities. I think we all know the demographics of football and basketball fans are significantly younger than baseball fans. This also affects participation. I suppose the route out of our American inner-cities is different than that of the Dominican. And this should be alright. Having the opportunity is what's important. I do not believe kids are prevented from participating due to race or national origin. At least I see no proof of it.
One of the best things about SSI/DOV is that these non-baseball, or "controversial" topics can be discussed by adults in a respectful way. Which is why, even though I seem to disagree with a lot of the posters when this kind of topic comes up, I stick around and read everyone's arguments, and POVs.
I've been thinking about what my own POV is here, and in doing so am trying to summarize the crux of your position, Doc. What I'm hearing is: it's fine for MLB to spend their money making the game more accessible to african american youths, although you don't see the point. Your position is that the market has decided the proper "distribution" of communities represented in the game, and what's the point of trying to alter that?
That's my honest attempt at trying to understand the original post, and so please tell me if I've put words into your mouth!
----
I don't really have a comprehensive counter to that, but just some random thoughts about the topic So apologies in advance for the incoherency :P
It seems to me that MLB in many ways has become a sport for the "rich" in the United States. I say "many ways" because obviously there are exceptions, and those exceptions also extend past our borders to the dominican, etc. But within the US, when you look at how the top talent fills the pipeline, there are barriers that make it inaccessible for young men whose families aren't well off. You have expensive travel teams, where families have to front the money for all of the accomodations. The best coaches tend to gravitate towards the richer suburban schools who have money, which in turn produces better players, which draws in the most scouts And beyond high school, collegiate baseball programs only offer a fraction of the full-ride scholarships of football programs, etc. If your family can't afford to pay for your college, you're not playing baseball.
When MLB formed it's task force to look into this stuff, the reasons were obvious to african american players who had dealt with these barriers first hand. I think it's useful to hear what they had to say about it.
“Take me, for example,” New York Yankees’ pitcher C. C. Sabathia said. “If I had a choice, I would have had to go to college to play football, because my mom couldn’t afford to pay whatever the percent was of my baseball scholarship. So if I hadn’t been a first-round pick, I would have gone to college to play football, because I had a full ride.
“All that factors in. How are you going to tell a kid from the hood that I can give you a 15-percent scholarship to go play baseball, or a full ride to go to Florida State for football? What are you going to pick? It’s not even an option.”
“Little League is not a problem,” he said. “Kids love to play Little League from 5 to 12, and they’ve got a great program. It’s from 12 to 15. It’s getting them from Little League to high school baseball is where we lose them — to football, to the streets, to basketball, to everything.”
He also mentioned another issue which I had not considered:
“Baseball’s a sport where you learn how to play catch with your dad,” he said. “There’s a lot of single-parent homes in the inner city, so it’s hard to get kids to play.“
Oof.
----
I don't think that MLB is racist. But I do think that MLB is more accessible to rich suburban families than poor families in the inner city. And when you consider how our society has oppressed african americans, literally since it was founded, it becomes a race issue.
Every summer you see the entire league celebrate Jackie Robinson's legacy, and pat itself on the back for being the first sport to break the color barrier. If it's going to continue doing that year after year, it owes african american boys and families more attention and support.
The deck is stacked against african americans, especially males, in so many ways. MLB can and should do it's part to try and change that. The sooner we admit that racism and bias is alive and well, the sooner we can really start to change.
Beyond that, diversity is just good for baseball. More talent from a wider base of kids, is good for the sport. The same reason that diversity is good in any business.
I agree with 95% at least. You only lost me at this idea that we can't start to change until we admit that racism and bias is alive and well. What does racism and bias have to do with anything you just explained - that baseball is more accessible to the poor, and that kids learn to play ball with their dads? Perhaps you are suggesting racism and bias is the cause of a permanent underclass among the African American community. I would suggest it is the lack of the father guiding and protecting the child. Racism and bias has not kept the Asian communities from succeeding here. As bad as it was to be Black in America, it was much worse to be Chinese. Racism and bias is a hindrance, but using it as an excuse for not hitting the books, not being there for your children, not fighting for that promotion, is more of a hindrance. Whether white America admits or ignores its white privilege will be a minor factor here. That's my opinion, I'm happy to hear how I'm wrong.
The Television money that is.
Whatever the reason for the decline of baseball participation by young African Americans, the cause for alarm in the halls of MLB is the loss of television revenue that follows. As MLB demographics have shifted more Latin I don't believe that has led to more Latin viewership. At least not enough to offset the loss of American Black viewership. Puerto Rico and Venezuela are not high dollar television markets. The Majority of people of Latin descent in the US trace their lineage back to Mexico, not Puerto Rico, The Dominican Republic or Venezuela. They feel no special cultural connection to Felix Hernandez or Robinson Cano and would rather watch soccer.
If Taijuan can become who we think he can be, he will draw higher TV ratings in LA per start than Felix can. That difference in money is what has MLB's attention.
aren't as heavily-represented in baseball. There are two primary factors, to my mind, which are even greater than the aforementioned social issues (those aforementioned issues being the gap between Little League, and the lower percentage of involved fathers in inner city households).
The first is a simple one: the need for more complicated, and expensive, equipment than any other major sport. With basketball all you need is a ten dollar ball, a hoop, and a relatively miniscule patch of pavement. With baseball, everyone needs a glove (the Latin American kids actually use milk cartons, but I digress), and there are several different styles of gloves which serve different purposes. And the catcher, if you're going to play the game for real, needs additional protective gear to keep from getting annihilated. You also need at least one bat, preferably aluminum, in addition to at least a couple of balls. While none of these things is super expensive by itself, they do add up. With football, you can stuff a flag in your back pocket and all you really *need* is a ten dollar ball to get a pick-up game going, and you can even play on pavement. Even tennis only requires a pair of fifty dollar racquets and a handful of one dollar balls, and there are tennis courts everywhere.
Which brings us to the significantly larger obstacle to inner city youth baseball involvement: the size of the playing field. Some of you will protest, "But there are plenty of baseball fields, football fields, and soccer fields where they could play!" That's true enough, but how is a kid supposed to hone his or her skills when they're not at the field? Baseball was embraced by the USA precisely because it was a game that people could go play in any relatively flat field. For a long time, our cultural identity was one which proudly represented the fact that agriculture is what made us great. Nowadays, it's all about tech companies and entertainment media.
I had a chocolate lab we picked up from the pound, and she would go retrieve my batted balls whenever I would go take swings in my front yard. My front yard just happened to be about three hundred and fifty feet deep, so it took a bit of practice before I could routinely send balls over the fence and onto the road. But even after I got to where I could do so, my dog would run into the field on the other side of the road and retrieve the ball. I'm not sure how you're supposed to practice hitting without such a large area (and, yes, I understand there are batting cages. but we're still talking about a genuine obstacle to practice/engagement when kids have to physically go to the cages, and then pay money to practice their swings. ask benihana just how badly a relatively minor bit of friction - a comprehensive signup form, compared to a quick signup form, for example - can impact a website's traffic...)
In conclusion, I really don't think this is a black vs. white thing, although that is a glaringly obvious symptom of the real issue. The real issue is that so many people today are growing up in cities, and that there are significantly simpler/easier sports to access than baseball for a kid who has options. Any kid can have a hoop setup on their driveway or in a parking lot no more than two minutes' walk from where they live, and he or she can do the vast majority of basketball training activities in that tiny area. That's why basketball is the number one sport in the Philippines, even though the median height for men here has to be around 5'4". It's because all they need is a piece of plywood, a hoop, a ball, and a coconut tree to play the game. You probably think I'm kidding about the coconut tree, but nope ;-)
Hunter and Sheffield are entitled to their opinions. But within most ethnic groups there is a diversity of opinion. For example, about 70% of Native Americans like the name "Washington Redskins," being proud of it, and about 30% are offended by it. If my sources are accurate, which they may not be.
The "negroid race" is that race descended from Africans. Hunter and Sheffield may wish to exclude blacks from countries other than America; if they do, then I disagree with them.
........
Where I do agree with the idea, is here: "Black Americans" or African-Americans" as distinguished from "African-Venezuelans" or "African-Columbians."
There may be a uniquely American reason(s) that blacks in this country are increasingly choosing sports other than baseball. It certainly isn't that Jack Zduriencik oppresses people whose skin is darker than his. The implication that he does, is itself quite unfair to him.
I'm thankful that you're adding so much. Very instructive.
.......
My thoughts on it are simple but, I believe, compelling as "first principles" or as an over-arc'ing compass. (Could be wrong.) In any case I am (as usual) amazed by the quality of the thinking in response. Really helps to flesh out (or revise) my understanding.
:: daps ::
... you misunderstand me.
;- )
And sincerest thanks for the respectful tone.
.......
It's not that I 'don't see the point' of MLB investing in RBI. I do see the point, and stated it in the original post my friend.
I have no objection to RBI, am not opposed to it, and don't doubt that it has a lot of value.
My own "agenda," if I have one, would be (1) to cool down the race war, to promote friendliness between whites and blacks, and (2) to tone down the ferocity with which many interest groups savage Corporate America for doing less than they'd like them to do. I'm no friend of Corporate America, but believe that excesses against it are unjust. Here we have "class" warfare.
I don't like race warfare, I don't like class warfare, and I don't like gender warfare. I like peace, love, attempts to build dialogue, and an operating assumption that those different from us are operating in good faith.
I appreciate efforts to *encourage* others to help, after I myself have helped, but resist efforts to *shame* or guilt others into doing as I wish them to do.
(I'm not claiming that anybody here is any different in their own attitudes. People were asking me to clarify my position.)
.........
Hopefully that orients you better as to my attitude? This is one of the few places where I can discuss race, class, and gender, and you're a big reason for that Dan :- )
.
Under the "owie" department, this is the one spot where we are talking past each other.
.
++ The sooner we admit that racism and bias is alive and well, the sooner we can really start to change. (Emphasis Dan's.)+
.
*Start* to change?
? I'm confused. How long ago would it have been, what would have been the most recent year, in which it would have been totally impossible for you to help put President Obama in office? I'm guessing 1972 or so?
The racial differences between America in 2014 and 1962, when I was born, can be seen and understood by a child.
The differences between America in 1962 and 1933, when my mother was born, same thing.
The differences between America in 1933, vs. 1862 (Civil War), are even more vast.
........
In America in 1962, the President wouldn't have been black. The #1 Hollywood star (Will Smith) wouldn't have been black. America's favorite athletes (Michael Jordan and his $1B in endorsements, Ken Griffey Jr., etc) wouldn't have been black. As a black comedian put it onstage, "White folks like Tiger more than we do." Same for Samuel L. Jackson, Wesley Snipes, etc.
In the church where I attend, (for instance) a black man is married to a white woman, they are expecting their second child, and nobody noticed. .... ? In 1962 ? My best (white) friend just adopted a black child.
How would Richard Sherman have been received in 1942?
.........
But -- you say -- if I (not intending to be pointed) ever truly admit that I oppress Negroes, then maybe we can START to change. This type of "inflammatory" (? for lack of a better word) characterization, to me, is what perpetuates our disconnect, and (unintentionally) increases racial tensions rather than decreases them.
Will welcome your reply. My emotion is that of confusion, not annoyance. You know where I stand; I think the world of you and your sincerity. We have a real chance to communicate here.
.
It is true that some white Americans have "oppressed" some blacks. Obviously.
How exactly you and I Dan, and Jonezie, and Jack Zduriencik, have "oppressed" blacks, I'd be honestly very interested to know.
.........
Here is another place that the Left and Right talk past each other. (I'm not Republican; I'm Christian.) The dictionary says that "oppression" involves the positive, unjust exercise of authority. In my experience, Democrats deem the negative failure to support to be morally equivalent to (indeed synoymous with) "oppression."
I don't believe that's true. USSM :- ) might "oppress" SSI, if they took steps to silence it, blackballed it, harrassed it verbally, etc. (Which they don't.) But failing to buy a TinyPass membership from me, or failure to "tip" me, that's different. I refuse to equate the two.
Positively giving money to the poor -- Welfare -- is not the same as negatively collecting less tax ("Corporate Welfare"). It's true that there are a few similarities, in terms of budget profit and loss. But the attempt to equate the two is confusing and misleading.
You won't hear me accusing others of Oppression when what they have done is decline to give me 'support' (= money).
........
Hitler oppressed Jews. But I've heard left-wing pundits compare Bush to Hitler, saying that Bush "oppressed" blacks, on the basis that he didn't give them enough support (= money). This does not forward dialogue, healing, or brotherly relations.
.........
It also seems strange to me, to even call 2014 white Americans "insensitive" to the problems of inner-city blacks. It's on TV right now on 4 channels, I'll guarantee you.
.........
I don't get it, but if there's anybody who can enlighten me, I'm sure it's you Dan.
Warm regards,
Jeff
To clarify, I do believe in giving a hand UP rather than a hand OUT. "Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto the poor," Deut. 15:8.
I should reinforce the fact that Cindy and I are very interested in donating a portion of our income to truly needy people. Tonight, in between comments we are fundraising from our friends to meet a crisis that is suffered by our friends in a 3rd-world country. (Edit to add later, yay! There we go. Last dollar's in; they'll get 3x their request.)
If we pull the trigger on the "TinyPass" DOV, 10% or more will go to hungry children overseas. We'll also make it easy for interested Denizens to support the poor further, with an extra mouse click, if they like.
.........
But while richer Americans offer a hand up, I would hope that the poorer Americans would examine the effects of single-parent epidemia and their own responsibilities in *getting* up once offered the hand.
As James just now put it on his blog -- he is anything but a conservative -- most American social programs have completely destroyed the lives of the poor.
.........
My problem isn't with helping the poor. :- ) My problem is that American-style (centralized!) income redistribution has been counterproductive.
That was my OWN situation. :- )
My single-parent mom couldn't afford baseball equipment for us. By the time she could, I was pretty far behind the other kids in Little League.
........
Again, I'm probably just confused here, but ... it didn't bother me that I played with a cheap basketball, and football. Why did I care?
That's what I don't get. I agree Dan.
........
Little League is accessible to a lot of kids, but ... Pony League? Where do you play in 8th grade? I never got that myself.
If that were truly a root problem, that inner-city kids would like to play Pony League but can't, then I'd say let's go ahead and get that infrastructure set up.
(On a related assumption ... I also don't understand why you and I, Dan, and Jonezie, should make "reparations" to the great-great-grandchildren of slaves.
Why modern blacks from the Barbary Coast would owe my wife reparations, since their ancestors enslaved her Irish ancestors, is also difficult to understand.
Do black Muslims today owe reparations for the 1,000,000 Europeans that they enslaved between 1550 and 1750?
Are we going to beat everyone equally with the "reparations" foam bat?
But reparations are a whole other subject, and would muddy the water here.
..........
My own position: We're born into a land of opportunity in America. I myself was born very, VERY poor -- literally playing with gravel and sticks as my toys, for example. I went and got a job at a Denny's, put myself through school, and went from there. I'm honestly unclear as to why others -- of whatever color -- can't do the same. In America, we have freedom and opportunity.)
Perhaps RBI is an investment in their next generation's customer base. :: shrug ::
Like I said, to the extent that RBI is motivated by kindness, benevolence and human decency, I admire it. To the extent it's political or used as a political football, I don't care about it one way or the other.
Good stuff guys.
but it does amuse me (and annoy me, and bring vague feelings of despair) when people cry foul about MLB's player ethnicity having too few of a given skin color/culture (because, as Doc points out above, a Caribbean person with extremely dark skin isn't a 'Black' - upper case intentional - person as far as American ethnicity police are concerned, which suggests the less about genetics and more about culture), but there is absolutely zero examination and critique of the ethnic/cultural makeup of the NBA or NFL (I saw an unofficial breakdown that had the African American slice of the 2014 pie at well over 60% of active players).
I genuinely have no problem with it being lopsided in that regard, just like I don't have any problem with the NHL being (probably; I don't watch it any more) even more heavily slanted toward 'white' players. I think most of us want excellence in our athletes; we couldn't care less what skin color they have, what kind of hairstyles they prefer, or how difficult their names are to pronounce without a primer.
Put the best talent on the field and watch them go at each other. If the best group of athletes is entirely Asian, so be it! If the best group of athletes is entirely of African lineage, great! If the highest levels are dominated by those of Viking descent, cool! I think it's great when certain groups can dominate a given field; it leads to a sense of 'cultural' pride, and in my opinion the world has gone too far in its attempts at keeping that particular facet of human behavior locked down.
The difficulty isn't so much that people break into tribes and sub-tribes. The issue, to me, is when people make the delineations *within their own heads* about the color of their skin. Morgan Freeman had a killer quote recently about this, and he said (paraphrasing), "How about you don't think about me as a black man, and I' don't think about you as a white man? I'm Morgan Freeman, and I'm an actor. Who are you?" That'll do for me, as well. I'm Jonezy, and I'm a writer. Who are you?
Sorry about the rant :-(
associated with playing a substantially 'cheaper' game in basketball or football. That's a killer add to my own thinking; there's no PERCEIVED downside to picking up hoops as opposed to baseball (and I don't know *anyone* who thought of themselves as 'better' or 'richer' because they scraped their knees every weekend on a sandlot instead of doing so on a basketball court). One sport is just incredibly more accessible than the other; I don't think the economic realities of adopting baseball are in any way/shape/form exclusive, in and of themselves, but they are OBSTACLES which end up dissuading a large number of kids from taking swings or playing catch.
It is a cool subject, though :-) I've always wanted to talk about this particular topic (inner city vs. rural involvement in sports like baseball). Even football, which is played on a 100 yard field, is almost completely reduced to 20 yard increments at the lowest levels. So all you need is a reasonably long street fronting your house and you can practice catch-and-throw. Baseball REQUIRES 300+ feet of open field ranging at least as far as a 45 degree angle in front of the hitter (and obviously the real game is played in a 90 degree field with the hitter standing at one ~corner).
When you played sandlot baseball, how much moving around did you do? Compared to 3-on-3?
I'm not sure baseball should be the preferred way for kids to get their "60". For me, sandlot baseball was closer to badminton than hoops. Ball comes your way 1/6th of the time on D; on offense it's even worse.
Baseball practice never compared to basketball practice or football practice, either. Well, unless you were the catcher :- )
As a fan of MLB more than other sports I support any program that encourages more people to play it at the professional level. Increase the player base, and you increase the level of competition at the highest level. If MLB is losing a certain type of player to the NFL or NBA, especially if its because of lack of access and money, then it is in the best interest of the league to change that.
This is a huge topic that might be too much for the comments section, but if I were going to make an argument for reparations I would start with a timeline that looked something like this:
1600-1860's: Slavery
1860's-1960's: Jim Crow, Voter Tests, Lynching and other terrorism
1930's-1960's: Red lining, contract housing, separate but equal
1960's-present: Mass incarceration, minimum sentences, unequal prosecution, felon registry databases
All of these factors and more have had the consistent and cumulative effect of locking African Americans out of the vote, and primary avenues of wealth generation like home ownership. Just as important, it has crippled black family networks that protect people from adversity, and has an effect on future families.
-------------------------------------
Ta Nehisi Coates created some waves on this subject his summer with his brilliant "Case For Reparations" article. It's long, but I would encourage people to read it for the concrete ways in which this country has kept African Americans away from opportunities we generally assume are available to all. http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparat...
McSweeney's also has a humorous (and very quick read) about the "Invisible Backpack" that is available to white people, and not to black. http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/product-review-the-invisible-backpack...