You're looking for honesty and introspection from Dean Esmay's visitors? You have a long wait.

Well, now, that's an interesting challenge. Do you want me to post it on my blog?

Because I must tell you: as a white person, I've had it beaten into me for some time that the notion that there even could be such a thing as a "white person's perspective" would, all by itself, be racist. Especially since, supposedly, all of popular culture is white people's perspective. Therefore, we can have no perspectives that really matter. We must simply be lectured to and told what we don't understand. Like children. Thus, many of us spend much of our time walking on eggshells and feeling like we should apologize for who we are, and for having opinions that others don't like.

I grew up among quite a bit of poor white trash. American History X was probably the best movie I ever saw in that regard. Seeringly honest, in a way I think most people are afraid to even look at. You want the truth? It's the white people's version of "Boyz in the Hood." Although most upper middle class white people would no more recognize those people as "their people" than your average upper middle class black suburbanite would recognize the people of lower class Detroit as truly his.

I grew up in a generation that really wanted to treat black people as total equals, would be happy to date black people, marry black people, live with them, work with them, have black bosses, vote for black politicians, etc., and still we hear that we are racist, live in a racist society that oppresses black people. Quite a few black people I know make a good deal more money than me, and I don't begrudge them a dime of it--not a dime of it--until I hear that, somehow, I'm priviledged and they aren't. I've been followed around stores by security guards, and pulled over at random and searched by police, and had no way I could say it was race that made it happen.This could be a painful and angry conversation. You sure you want to have it?

And, are you sure you won't just call me or others racists just because we don't see things your way? Because that's happened to me too, and let me tell ya: it hurts.

I'm not even sure I should be writing this, as I'm sure I'll be dubbed a racist and a white supremacist by some just for saying any of this.I like Mithras' cheap shot at my commenters. Like, you know, people who don't agree with Mithras are automatically bad people, and like he wouldn't have an opportunity to say his piece if he wanted to.

Feh. You really want it, man? Or are you just happy to live in your own little world where everyone who disagrees with you is automatically defined as wrong?

I've got something bigger going on on my blog today. Maybe for the rest of the week. But if you really want me to post on this, I will.With all respect, I will.But I'll want to set it aside for a few days first.If you want it, though, shoot me a mail and we'll talk. The only thing I'll promise: to make it real. No attacks, but honest truth.You let me know.

To everyone:I'm going to email Dean and tell him I am, indeed interested. From the last one I linked to, I have a pretty good idea of what's coming, and frankly I doubt it will be anything I haven't heard.Y'all have heard it too. And that's the reason everyone should be able to keep shit in check.Keep it in check here. Keep it in check there.

Because I got this whole Identity Blogging thing going on. In that context, no one's gotten disrespected for their writing so far (a couple of commenters have been walking the line, but…) And to be clear, I haven't found Dean irrational (which is as far from saying I'm going to assume his viewpoint as it is from saying he'll assume mine); it's the comments to that particular post I found to be opportunistically offensive.He said he's putting it on hold for a couple of days. Let's see how this works out.

I guess I don't really understand to what you are objecting, P6.It was an opinion. It was a generalization. Much like the one you expressed.What, exactly, is the P6 standard for whom may express an opinion, then?

I mean, you don't actually add anything to the discussion at hand: is it wrong to ban a book that was influential in ending slavery because one of the characters used the word 'nigger' in ignorance?

No, you object to someone's expression of outrage, and do so rudely and condescendingly. My reaction would be entirely different had you said something like:"Hey, um, did you realize that it's actually white people who drive sales of rap music? And since popular teen music has pretty much always been based in rebellion, what makes you think anything can be done about the language in rap music anyway, particularly without violating 1st Amendment Rights?"

See? Same point made, but you aren't just insulting someone else for having an opinion, you're giving them an opportunity to re-think or support their position. Because isn't it possible that you might be just as or more wrong than the person you are slamming? Isn't it?

Hey. Sorry I blew my cool. It was more Mithras that set me off than you.Give me a few days to get some other business out of the way. Then we'll do this thing.I think a lot of times, young people who talk about race are defining the conversation by their parents' values and experiences. I've been hoping a long, long time that younger generations would finally reach a point where we could just be real with each other.In fact, I find that in one-on-ones we often can be. Maybe we can find a way to make such very real conversations public, without bashing the shit out of each other, or getting all defensive.

I'd like that. I mean, I'd really really like it a lot.Let's see if we can't make it happen.Dean

I guess I don't really understand to what you are objecting, P6.It was an opinion. It was a generalization. Much like the one you expressed.What, exactly, is the P6 standard for whom may express an opinion, then?

That which I quoted what not an opinion. Okay, if I stretch, I can say it's an it's an opinion that Ms. Clark has no grounds for complaint until the Black community is scrubbed clean of such language.If I thought that were the opinion being express rather than just being an unthinking rant, my opinion of it would have been a lot harsher.As for the standard for expressing an opinion, that depends. Are you doing in on my blog? The standards are higher here…you HAVE read the warning, have you not?

I mean, you don't actually add anything to the discussion at hand: is it wrong to ban a book that was influential in ending slavery because one of the characters used the word 'nigger' in ignorance?

That was the discussion on Dean' World. The discussion here is, "should I stop being tolerant when I read unreasonable rants with racial flavors?" Whole different topic, Nathan.

No, you object to someone's expression of outrage, and do so rudely and condescendingly.

That was not condescending.

My reaction would be entirely different had you said something like:

I'm may well be less concerned about your opinion that you'd expect, suspect or hope. As you said, I made my point. If you are incapable of seperating your emotional reaction from the facts at hand, this is not my problem or issue to deal with.

See? THAT'S condescending. :-) I can do that a the drop of a hat. Hopefully you see there was no condescension in the previous response…and more than a touch of it in yours.

P6: Hi. Write about the experience of being white?Um. What do you mean? I sunburn easily, and then my skin peels. But if I use sunscreen, my skin turns a cool bronze color that you wish you could get :) In the winter I get a little pasty and think I really should get outside more. My skins tends to show blemishes and still breaks out. When I'm dressed in a suit and clean-shaven, I look so much like a generic white guy that if I'm a crowd of white people in suits near a glass-faced office building, I can't pick out my own reflection. I can't dunk. I don't dance well but then again no one holds it against me, either. I can grow a hell of a beard. A man's beard. Not some kind of stringy thing. Grows up to my eyes if I'm not careful. But if I'm trying to be clean-shaven, I have a tendency to look like a stubble bum by three and forget five o'clock shadow: I have five o'clock beard. What else you want to know? :)

Or did you want me to talk about white privilege or something.... OK, if you're saying Huck Finn has literary problems, let's discuss it. I have some questions on my own blog. If you're saying that repetition of a specific racial slur impacts my reading, well, yeah. I get that. If you're want to discuss the politics of educational reading lists, well, is there really any shortage of good stuff to read? This whole issue (called canonicity in literary circles) wouldn't exist if someone would just re-write Huck Finn from Jim's point of view. Then they will always be taught together. Examples: Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe; Foe by J.M. Coetzee (from Friday's point of view.). Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad; Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte; Wide Sargasso Sea (from Mrs. Rochester's p.o.v.) by Jean Rhys.All someone needs to do is re-write the story from Jim's point of view and match the literary merit of Twain's book. In the above examples, the literary merits of all six books are about equal. There's no affirmative action there. Better get crackin'.

Been there done that. Not me, but Toni Morrison. You don't have to build the Fourth Reich to prove that the Third was corrupt. So all of this 'rewriting' has been done in literary criticism. Interestingly enough, those writers who criticized the canon had their own ideas. They weren't interested in blackification of the classics (with the notable and brilliant exception of Derek Walcott's 'Omeros'); they were interested in writing stories just as valid, but of a different sort altogether.So I'm saying you can't have it both ways, a 'rejoinder' literary backlash AND authentic multicultural literary tradition.

IB Bill:

Or did you want me to talk about white privilege or something....

OK, if you're saying Huck Finn has literary problems, let's discuss it. I have some questions on my own blog.

If you're saying that repetition of a specific racial slur impacts my reading, well, yeah. I get that.

If you're want to discuss the politics of educational reading lists, well, is there really any shortage of good stuff to read?

Do you really not understand that my problem is the opportunistic hostility toward Black people the comments to that post showed? The straw man of rap music (straw men being a sure sign that someone had something else on their mind), the leap to 'victimology" as a means to "push people around'…

I read Dean's thread on Chicago politics. You saw no beef from me, about the title, the content or even the comments about "multi-culti" and such…everyone gets their opinions, and when the topic is at hand I expect SOMEbody to say something I disagree with. But at least it was on topic.

You ask what else I want to know.

I want to know how white folks (in general and in particular) see society, and in particular, race relations…and without hysteria, without sarcasm, how they came to see it that way. Because I don't want to guess or misattribute shit. In my view, if Black folks understood white folks to the degree all the descriptions imply, we'd be running the joint and everyone would be happy. And if white folks understood Black folks the way they seem to claim, everyone would be happy with the way things are run.

Therefore, neither side has a grip on this. And I think if folks calmly and rationally explained themselves while other folks calmly and rationally listen, progress could be made.That's what I want to know. You think you're up for that?

So I'm saying you can't have it both ways, a 'rejoinder' literary backlash AND authentic multicultural literary tradition.

You lost me, Cobb. Why not? You can have whatever you want in literary tradition -- works that critique other works, works that tell the story from other points of view, works that incorporate other works (e.g., Kathy Acker's Great Expectations and Don Quixote), and works that have nothing to do with other works. I'm not sure what you're getting out with the "corrupt" thing. Are you saying Huck Finn is a corrupt literary work or comes from a corrupt culture? If so, how?

Nonetheless, I probably overstated my case by saying the problem with Huck Finn would "disappear". No, the problem's not going away, although additional works can recontextualize a previous work. You know, the old influence of T.S. Eliot on Shakespeare thing, that is, new works create readings that make it difficult or even impossible to view the old work in its old context.

P6:I didn't read Dean's thread on Chicago politics, so I don't know what that's about.As for the opportunistic hostility toward blacks in the Huck Finn thread, I wasn't addressing your take on that issue at all. I was only answering the question you had at the end of your entry, about the experience of being white. It was an unusual question so that's what interested me and that's why I had some fun with it. So sorry if I was off-topic. On topic now ... I didn't read a hostility to black people in the comments. What I did read was a hostility to certain behaviors. On the topic of a rational discussion, yeah, I'm up for that. I can only speak for myself, of course. Why don't you ask me specific questions? What do you want to know about how white people see society?

a quick note on Huck Finn. slavery was abolished in 1865, and i believe Huck Finn wasn't published until the 1880s. i'm not sure how it had a hand in helping to abolish slavery considering the publishing date.

AND, i got a troublesome essay trackbacked today:http://www.donotremove.net/archives/002570.html

Lauren:Thanks for the precision on Huck Finn.

I can see why you'd find the essay on the other end of the trackback troubling. I don't because I understand what he's saying and why…well, in fact, he writes it out pretty clearly.Truth, you have discussions like this, you have to be ready for responses like that. The essay is a legitimate response to the questions posed. So I am going to add it to the list of responses.

Trackback from nitecrawler:

I think this is going to be a good cross blog discussion. It started here on Dean's World and was picked up by P6. The fur may fly on this one, but I'm sure there will be some thoughtful opinions......

IB Bill:How our particular race and/or ethnicity is an ongoing conversation. Here are the questions making the rounds for white folks:
1. what does it mean to be white? what does it mean to be White?
2. how has whiteness affected your worldview?
3. how has whiteness affected your educational experience?
4. how has whiteness affected your experience with authority?
5. how has whiteness affected your experiences with people of other races and ethnicities?

Interestingly enough, Black and Chicano/Latino folks who have responded just flowed behind as single question: What does it mean to be a Black blogger? You can answer the equivalent question (What does it mean to be a White blogger?) instead of the five up there.

I'm amused at the way so many whites express outrage when blacks use the word "nigger." The best line I ever heard about it was by a black comedian on "Tough Crowd" on Comedy Central, when the discussion turned to race and got a bit heated and he said, you white people are just upset because you invented the word and now you can't use it. I laughed till I choked on that one!

P6: Thanks. I'll think about it and maybe post something back here.

P6,Actually, your intentional condescension seemed about equal to the unintentional. I didn't intend to come across condescendingly, because as I wrote, I was (and am) conscious of the fact that with a little more understanding on my part, or a little more explanation on your part, I may realize I'm absolutely wrong.

But seeing what else you wrote to other people, while I don't think I'm absolutely I think I understand what upset you now.

Except, there is no "white experience". I am me. Dean is Dean. P6 is P6. There are as many ways to be a black blogger as there is to be a white blogger as there are ways to be a blogger. So what? Dean can't speak for me any more or less than you can.

If you start talking about the "white experience" or the "black experience", you disenfranchise someone who has a similar experience but happens to have different experiences. That's how Alan Keyes and JC Watts get treated worse by people who champion minority empowerment than by the so-called Establishment.

Can't we just get beyond race for a moment? We don't see faces or skin on the internet (unless you post a picture), so can't blogs, at least, be beyond race and racial politics? Be yourself. I'll be me. That should be enough.

nathan:In all seriousness, race is the fundamental social fact in this country. No matter how you see it, you see it. All my experiences are the experiences of a particular Black man. It can't be otherwise.

If we get "beyond race" at this point in our social development, we're just pretending. And I have a serious addiction to reality.

Race is the fundamantal social fact? When you say that, what do you mean? Race, it it seems to me, is mostly a cultural construct. There are some biological racial differences, but they are small and unimportant. The racial divide is mostly a cultural divide, and that, on the other hand, is larger. But that can change.Let me give you an example of where I'm coming from. I spent two years in the Peace Corps in Central Africa. Now, Peace Corps is mostly white, for whatever reason. But there is another program called IFESH started by Leon Sullivan run by the U.S. AID. It was a one-year program to teach in Africa, mostly for black teachers. It was kind of black Peace Corps, except it paid better and was for only one year. Now, the IFESH volunteers used to come into the country with the most sincere look of pilgrimage you've ever seen. They were dressed in African dress and all but walking around going, my brother, my sister. I doubt Muslims look with more reverence on Mecca than these volunteers do in their first few weeks in Africa. Most were initially polite but aloof; some of them very frankly criticized the Peace Corps volunteers as "neo-colonialist" and said very unpleasant things. After training in the capital city, they are assigned to towns and villages, just like Peace Corps volunteers. One day, not long after posting, I recall a friend of mine getting an earful one day from an IFESH volunteer the first time they met. My friend responded, "Look, I'm going to forget everything you just said. If in three weeks you still agree with yourself, that's fine. We'll just steer clear of each other. But if you change your mind, you're welcome to hang out with us. Don't think you're alone out here." About four days later, my friend got the friendliest greeting you've ever seen from that guy. Because only a few days in a village convinced him what it convinced most of us: The cultural differences between IFESH volunteers and Peace Corps volunteers of different races is a drop in the bucket compared to the differences between the villagers and the IFESH volunteers.So race the fundamental social fact? Depends what you mean by race. I've thought a lot about these issues ... and I think by far the biggest natural gap between people is gender. A good looking woman walks by ... and the black guys and the white guys and the Asians guys and the Aborigine men are all looking and thinking very similar thoughts ...So if you're talking about levels of difference, then I disagree. Language, gender, culture, class, education level, similarity of experience, and religion are all in the mix with race. But if you're talking about something else, let me know.

Race is one aspect. And hardly the most important.Regardless of race, the rural vs urban aspect of experience makes a bigger difference. Economic standing makes a bigger difference. The emphasis on education makes a bigger difference.Meaning: I was raised in a poor, white family. I had more in common with the kids from a poor black family in our small town of Cisco, TX than I do with someone like President Bush, someone of my own race raised in privilege. Being the youngest in a large family, there were some aspects of my "experience" that were more in common with the youngest of a large hispanic family than with a white female who was an only child. And I have the divorce to prove it.Defining the whole of your being by one aspect, and a minor appearance point is sad. How do you know your experience isn't because of your hair texture, or build, rather than skin color?I can only conclude that to you, being black is important only because you make it important.Besides, to write from the "white experience", I'd have to know the "black experience" to be able to make you understand what the difference is.And no matter what you think the experience of being a "black blogger" is, I can guarantee you I can find someone with a wholly different experience.

I'm not talking about Central Africa. I'm not talking about the Peace Corp.

In the United States, race is the fundamental social fact. Everyone wants to know "what are you?" if it's in the least open to question. Just let one of those "lightskinpeople" be found out by their friends to be of recent African descent. The temperature in the room will drop 10 degrees. White men with felony convictions have an easier time getting jobs than Black men with clean records. A wealthy person can marry a beautiful poor person with few repercussions. A person of X race who marries a beautiful person of Y race will likely catch holy hell.

We can trade stories like this until the cows come home. Affirmative action. Victim mentality. Sell-outs. Uncle Toms. Oreos, coconuts and bananas. Liberal guilt, conservative anger. Klan. Black bastard. Crakka-ass crakka. Honky. Nigger.Racist.

I can evoke the all the power of your story that denies the force of race with a single word—at most two—that draws on that force.

Spare me.

This very conversation is proof of the primacy of race.

I can evoke the all the power of your story that denies the force of race with a single word—at most two—that draws on that force....Spare me.

Yes, epithets would evoke all the power of my story. Getting a strong emotional reaction from someone isn't terribly difficult, especially if you're simply trying to antagonize them. And it doesn't prove anything except about the importance of good manners. Talking about the power of epithets is an emotional argument -- and emotional arguments won't get us very far.

I'm not talking about Central Africa. I'm not talking about the Peace Corps ... In the United States, race is the fundamental social fact.

OK, so you admit that culture is more important, but within American culture itself race is still the predominant factor. Still arguable.

This very conversation is proof of the primacy of race.

No, this conservation happened because you and the crew here seem like interesting people and I thought an exchange of ideas may be productive. Also, I tend to put off work and this counts as procrastination.

White men with felony convictions have an easier time getting jobs than Black men with clean records.

With equal levels of education and experience? With equal talent? Show me the data on that.

A wealthy person can marry a beautiful poor person with few repercussions. A person of X race who marries a beautiful person of Y race will likely catch holy hell.

I wouldn't count on the former at all. Few repercussions? Do you know what the rich are like? Still, I'd agree with your point on this. I was talking priorities, not denying the force of race by any means. Of course it's important. But you said it was the fundamental social fact, when I believe it's important, but certainly not the most important. But again, I'm not sure what you mean by the fundamental social fact.

Also, I tend to put off work and this counts as procrastination.

I gotta install smilies for just such lines as this. ;-)

White men with felony convictions have an easier time getting jobs than Black men with clean records.

With equal levels of education and experience? With equal talent? Show me the data on that.

Sure. I blogged it back in August. Links to the reports are all there.I'm really enjoying the search feature in MT.

Race has the biggest impact on wealth, income, health, education, where you live, how you live of any factor. In the USofA there is nothing you can do, be or encounter that is not impacted by race. That's what I mean by "the fundamental fact."

Mind you, this is the experience of a particular Black guy. Happens to be the experience of most Black folks I know, too. And race determines what you must react to, not necessarily what your reaction will be.

OK, I read the study you cited. While it did make a compelling point, it only partially supports your broad interpretation. That is, you are drawing a far broader conclusion about the study than the study itself claims. The study was about the effects of incarceration on employment. The job opportunities were all entry level and concerned about eight different occupations low-skill jobs that basically anyone could do with a day or two's training.

None of the candidates claimed to have a college degree. Entire professions and industries were left out, including health care (1/7 of the economy), child care, and the public sector, because felons are ineligible. So you eliminate health care, government, jobs that require a college education, mid-level and mid-career jobs, and you're eliminating a lot. This is not a criticism of the study -- the study was trying to show the effect of incarceration on job prospects, not to broadly compare the prospects of white felons to equally qualified blacks with clean criminal records.

The study shows that in entry-level jobs in low-skill industries in Milwaukee in a tough economy (all this is admitted by the study), racism exists and is very serious. It doesn't show that a black man in America with a clean record and a white man in America with a felony conviction have the same job prospects in America. The black man can apply for all the jobs, for starters, that felons can't. It doesn't consider jobs requiring college degrees, professional jobs, or non-entry level jobs -- or jobs in a far broader range of industries. The lesson is twofold for individuals: Get an education so you don't have to apply for entry level jobs or low-skill jobs, where you're likely to be discriminated against. And don't get arrested, especially if you're black. Still all this said, the impact of race even in that limited frame of reference of the study is still disquieting. Essentially, if you want a job and you're white, you need to go fill out three applications from the classifieds. If you're black, you have to fill out eight. Hmm...

That is, you are drawing a far broader conclusion about the study than the study itself claims.

I grant that that I'm making a broader statement than the study alone supports. But the statement isn't supported by the study alone.

the impact of race even in that limited frame of reference of the study is still disquieting.

Yes. At minimum it forces one to give greater consideration to the anecdotal evidence Black people give that tends to be written off as an exception by the mainstream. Now, a few more things that need consideration.

The lesson is twofold for individuals: Get an education so you don't have to apply for entry level jobs or low-skill jobs, where you're likely to be discriminated against. And don't get arrested, especially if you're black.

That's the lesson to individuals, but what's the lesson to the collective? The individual view isn't the only valid view. It's like air pressure can be calculated but the motions of the individual air molecules whose motion create that pressure can't (which example I use because the quantum mechanical example has become way too new-age). Anyway, let's start on the education thing.

College education have been financed by home ownership. Yeah, scholarships and financial aid, yeah working one's way through, but on the whole the first statement is still valid. And the quality of the education one receives is indirectly determined by home ownership as well. Black folks are still suffereing from the results of public policy decisions:

How does housing history and homeownership contribute to racialized discrepancies in wealth?

I think one of the most interesting sets of decisions has to do with the realm of housing. In order to purchase a house in America prior to the 1930s, you had to pay up to 50% of the sales price up front. The rest was subject to interest, and at the end of five years you had to pay the remaining balance as a lump sum. Obviously, with that type of arrangement, there were very few middle class people who could buy a home in America. Mainly buying homes was an upper middle class and upper class phenomenon. But the 1930s created a whole new set of opportunities for Americans to purchase homes. The federal government came in to create and sustain the construction industry. And to do that, they created the Federal Housing Administration, whose job it was to provide loans, or the backing for loans, to average Americans so they could purchase a home. The tables were turned completely around. The new terms of purchasing a home was that you put 10% or 20% down, and the bank financed 80% of it - not over five years, but over thirty years - at relatively low rates. This opened up the opportunities for Americans to own homes like never before. The average person could own a home. Furthermore, the FHA allowed no or low down payments for certain kinds of homes. So as a consequence the housing industry boomed in the midst of the Depression, because the federal government was trying to create jobs for people, boost the housing industry. So you had this great opportunity. But it was a color-coded opportunity. How? In order for homes to receive financing, they would have to be certified by home appraisers. The appraisers were given written criteria that assigned colors to different types of homes. Green was the highest value - green homes were homes that were in all-white neighborhoods, usually suburban, and far away from communities that were either integrated or all black. Red was the lowest value - red neighborhoods were in all-minority or mixed communities and were usually in inner cities. These homes rarely got mortgages. The vast majority of mortgages were reserved for homes in all-white suburban areas. This appraisal method came to be known as redlining. This color-coded criteria was central in determining who got loans and who didn't. They didn't say blacks couldn't get loans. But they did say communities in which there were few blacks could get loans. As a consequence, most of the mortgages went to suburbanizing America, and it suburbanized it racially. Today metropolitan America is made up of white suburbs and African American inner cities.This appraisal system has greatly influenced the net worth or wealth of the average American today. Today, the value of the suburban house that was purchased in 1940 has gone up tremendously. So much so that the discrepancy between the net worth of these homeowners and the net worth of the inner-city residents and minorities that were excluded from these programs is astounding. A perfect example is the communities on the East Coast that are called Levittowns. These were mass-market suburban housing tracts that were built at very, very reasonable cost. As a matter of fact, in the suburbs of New York or Philadelphia you could get a two-bedroom Levittown home for $5,000 to $7,000. Most of those communities did not require a down payment. Many people stood in line for days waiting to sign up - the first one in line got the home. Essentially this resulted in the social construction of racialized space - a space in which whites lived in the suburbs, blacks lived in the inner city. Furthermore they created these differences, these vast differences in wealth. If you look at the 1994 survey of income and program participation, you can see that a homeowner that purchased a Levittown type home in 1950 for about $5,000 now has about $300,000 in home equity. That's an investment that has grown tremendously over time. According to the same survey, an African American family that did not have an opportunity to buy that home, or who had to purchase a home in the inner city, has substantially less wealth. So that's how you start to see how this huge gap between white and black wealth was created.These were FHA-financed homes. The homes in Levittowns all had what we call restrictive covenants. These were legal, binding agreements that said no one who was Black, Latino, Chinese, and in some cases Jewish, could purchase those homes. Not only would the FHA support these covenants, but they would provide an example of a legally-enforceable, racially restrictive covenant in their pamphlets to home buyers.

As for "don't get arrested, especially if you're black," go back to my blog page that pointed you toward Devah Pager's research and check the other studies Kieran Healy referenced to contextualize it. In particular, the paper "Inequality in Lifetime Risks of Incarceration" says:

Although growth in the U.S. prison population over the last 25 years has been widely discussed, few studies examine changes in inequality in imprisonment. We study penal inequality by estimating lifetime risks of imprisonment for black and white men at di erent levels of education. Combining administrative, survey, and census data, we estimate that among men born 1965–69, 3 percent of whites and 20 percent of blacks will have served time in prison by their early thirties. The risks of incarceration are highly stratified by education. Among black men born 1965–69, 30 percent of those without college education and nearly 60 percent of high school dropouts went to prison by 1999. The novel pervasiveness of imprisonment indicates the emergence of incarceration as a new stage in the life course of young low-skill black men.

So. Take poor K-12 education facilities due the lack of wealth generated by home ownership (which lack can be attributed to racialized federal policy). Add a reduced ability to finace college (due to the same policy). You have a far lower rate of Black Americans with college degrees…

Add the fact that some 30% of those with high school diplomas will be arrested and 60% of those who drop out will be and you see the pool of Black people who need entry level jobs (and hence are subject to the disquieting effect you now recognize) is vast. And that is largely due to racialized public policy.

A discussion of the reasons for the disparity in arrests and how the reputation for criminality it creates affect the employability of Black people in those other fields you mentioned, truthfully, would rely more on anecdotal evidence. But I suspect you can extrapolate it for yourself.